Report No.

255

Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale

Wastewater Treatment Plants: The Irish Case
Authors: Lorna Fitzsimons, Greg McNamara,
Edelle Doherty and Eoghan Clifford

www.epa.ie
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for
protecting and improving the environment as a valuable asset
for the people of Ireland. We are committed to protecting people
and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation and
pollution.
The work of the EPA can be
divided into three main areas:
Regulation: We implement effective regulation and environmental
compliance systems to deliver good environmental outcomes and
target those who don’t comply.
Knowledge: We provide high quality, targeted and timely
environmental data, information and assessment to inform
decision making at all levels.
Advocacy: We work with others to advocate for a clean,
productive and well protected environment and for sustainable
environmental behaviour.
Our Responsibilities
Licensing
We regulate the following activities so that they do not endanger
human health or harm the environment:
• waste facilities (e.g. landfills, incinerators, waste transfer
stations);
• large scale industrial activities (e.g. pharmaceutical, cement
manufacturing, power plants);
• intensive agriculture (e.g. pigs, poultry);
• the contained use and controlled release of Genetically
Modified Organisms (GMOs);
• sources of ionising radiation (e.g. x-ray and radiotherapy
equipment, industrial sources);
• large petrol storage facilities;
• waste water discharges;
• dumping at sea activities.
National Environmental Enforcement
• Conducting an annual programme of audits and inspections of
EPA licensed facilities.
• Overseeing local authorities’ environmental protection
responsibilities.
• Supervising the supply of drinking water by public water
suppliers.
• Working with local authorities and other agencies to tackle
environmental crime by co-ordinating a national enforcement
network, targeting offenders and overseeing remediation.
• Enforcing Regulations such as Waste Electrical and Electronic
Equipment (WEEE), Restriction of Hazardous Substances
(RoHS) and substances that deplete the ozone layer.
• Prosecuting those who flout environmental law and damage the
environment.
Water Management
• Monitoring and reporting on the quality of rivers, lakes,
transitional and coastal waters of Ireland and groundwaters;
measuring water levels and river flows.
• National coordination and oversight of the Water Framework
Directive.
• Monitoring and reporting on Bathing Water Quality.
Monitoring, Analysing and Reporting on the
Environment
• Monitoring air quality and implementing the EU Clean Air for
Europe (CAFÉ) Directive.
• Independent reporting to inform decision making by national
and local government (e.g. periodic reporting on the State of
Ireland’s Environment and Indicator Reports).
Regulating Ireland’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Preparing Ireland’s greenhouse gas inventories and projections.
• Implementing the Emissions Trading Directive, for over 100 of
the largest producers of carbon dioxide in Ireland.
Environmental Research and Development
• Funding environmental research to identify pressures, inform
policy and provide solutions in the areas of climate, water and
sustainability.
Strategic Environmental Assessment
• Assessing the impact of proposed plans and programmes on the
Irish environment (e.g. major development plans).
Radiological Protection
• Monitoring radiation levels, assessing exposure of people in
Ireland to ionising radiation.
• Assisting in developing national plans for emergencies arising
from nuclear accidents.
• Monitoring developments abroad relating to nuclear
installations and radiological safety.
• Providing, or overseeing the provision of, specialist radiation
protection services.
Guidance, Accessible Information and Education
• Providing advice and guidance to industry and the public on
environmental and radiological protection topics.
• Providing timely and easily accessible environmental
information to encourage public participation in environmental
decision-making (e.g. My Local Environment, Radon Maps).
• Advising Government on matters relating to radiological safety
and emergency response.
• Developing a National Hazardous Waste Management Plan to
prevent and manage hazardous waste.
Awareness Raising and Behavioural Change
• Generating greater environmental awareness and influencing
positive behavioural change by supporting businesses,
communities and householders to become more resource
efficient.
• Promoting radon testing in homes and workplaces and
encouraging remediation where necessary.
Management and structure of the EPA
The EPA is managed by a full time Board, consisting of a Director
General and five Directors. The work is carried out across five
Offices:
• Office of Environmental Sustainability
• Office of Environmental Enforcement
• Office of Evidence and Assessment
• Office of Radiation Protection and Environmental Monitoring
• Office of Communications and Corporate Services
The EPA is assisted by an Advisory Committee of twelve members
who meet regularly to discuss issues of concern and provide
advice to the Board.
 EPA RESEARCH PROGRAMME 2014–2020

Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale

Wastewater Treatment Plants: The Irish Case

(2014-W-DS-16)

EPA Research Report

Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency

by

Dublin City University

Authors:

Lorna Fitzsimons, Greg McNamara, Edelle Doherty and Eoghan Clifford

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

An Ghníomhaireacht um Chaomhnú Comhshaoil
PO Box 3000, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford, Ireland

Telephone: +353 53 916 0600 Fax: +353 53 916 0699

Email: info@epa.ie  Website: www.epa.ie
 ©Environmental Protection Agency 2018

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report is published as part of the EPA Research Programme 2014-2020. The EPA Research
Programme is a Government of Ireland initiative funded by the Department of Communications,
Climate Action and Environment. It is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, which
has the statutory function of co-ordinating and promoting environmental research.

The authors would like to acknowledge the EPA for its financial support. The authors acknowledge
the contribution of the project steering committee, namely Mr John Gray (Consultant), Mr Brendan
Kissane (EPA), Dr Eadaoin Joyce (Irish Water), Mr Robert Kennedy (Irish Water) and Dr Hadyn
Love-Knowles (ex Irish Water).

DISCLAIMER
Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the material contained in this
publication, complete accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The Environmental Protection Agency, the
authors and the steering committee members do not accept any responsibility whatsoever for loss
or damage occasioned, or claimed to have been occasioned, in part or in full, as a consequence of
any person acting, or refraining from acting, as a result of a matter contained in this publication.
All or part of this publication may be reproduced without further permission, provided the source is
acknowledged.

The EPA Research Programme addresses the need for research in Ireland to inform policymakers
and other stakeholders on a range of questions in relation to environmental protection. These reports
are intended as contributions to the necessary debate on the protection of the environment.

EPA RESEARCH PROGRAMME 2014–2020

Published by the Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland

ISBN: 978-1-84095-785-3 August 2018

Price: Free Online version

ii
 Project Partners

Dr Lorna Fitzsimons Greg McNamara

Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
Dublin City University Dublin City University
Dublin Dublin
Ireland Ireland
Tel: +353 1 700 7716 Tel: +353 1 700 7716
Email: lorna.fitzsimons@dcu.ie Email: greg.mcnamara5@mail.dcu.ie

Dr Eoghan Clifford Edelle Doherty

Civil Engineering Civil Engineering
College of Engineering and Informatics College of Engineering and Informatics
NUI Galway NUI Galway
Galway Galway
Ireland Ireland
Tel: +353 9 149 2219 Tel: +353 9 149 2219
Email: eoghan.clifford@nuigalway.ie Email: e.doherty4@nuigalway.ie

iii
 Contents

Acknowledgements ii
Disclaimer ii
Project Partners iii
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii
List of Boxes ix
Executive Summary xi
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Objectives 1
1.2 Project Outputs 2
1.3 Report Structure 2
2 Literature Summary 3
2.1 Introduction 3
2.2 Wastewater Treatment Systems and Processes 3
2.3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis 5
2.4 Life Cycle Assessment 5
2.5 Wastewater Treatment Plant Management and Performance Assessment 6
2.6 Conclusion 8
3 Methodology and Toolkit Development 9
3.1 Economic and Environmental Life Cycle Cost Analysis 9
3.2 Performance Assessment and Benchmarking 16
3.3 Assessment of the Statistical Agreement between Wastewater Sampling
Methods for Daily WWTP Benchmarking Purposes 20
4 Results and Discussion 23
4.1 Economic Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Environmental Life Cycle
Assessment 23
4.2 Performance Assessment Methodology 28
4.3 Comparable Wastewater Treatment Plant Identification Tool 30
5 Conclusions 34

v
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants

6 Recommendations 35
6.1 Assess Performance Using Multiple Criteria and KPIs over the System Life
Cycle 35
6.2 Performance Assessment Methodology Application 35
6.3 Sampling Methods at WWTPs 35
6.4 System Selection 35
7 Publications Arising from This Research 36
7.1 Articles 36
7.2 Peer-reviewed Conference Papers 36
7.3 Invited Talks 36
7.4 Theses 37
References 38
Abbreviations 42
Appendix 1 Survey of Existing Irish WWTSs 43

vi
 List of Figures

Figure 2.1. Typical performance assessment and performance improvement/

benchmarking processes using key performance indicators (KPIs) 7
Figure 3.1. Overview of study procedure 9
Figure 3.2. System schematics 11
Figure 3.3. Life cycle cost distribution 13
Figure 3.4. Decision support tool program overview 14
Figure 3.5. User input screen 14
Figure 3.6. System information screen 15
Figure 3.7. System comparison screen 15
Figure 3.8. Challenges facing WWTP benchmarking methodologies 16
Figure 3.9. KPICalc framework 18
Figure 3.10. Comparable WWTP identifier tool process chart 20
Figure 3.11. Flowchart of the daily sampling methods and agreement assessments of
various methods 21
Figure 4.1. Life cycle cost distribution, 500 PE 26
Figure 4.2. Life cycle cost distribution, 2000 PE 26
Figure 4.3. Life cycle cost distribution – low loading 27
Figure 4.4. Life cycle cost distribution – high loading 27
Figure 4.5. Life cycle cost distribution – sludge option 1 27
Figure 4.6. Life cycle cost distribution – sludge option 2 27
Figure 4.7. Global warming potential 29
Figure 4.8. Acidification potential 29
Figure 4.9. Eutrophication potential 29
Figure 4.10. Abiotic resource depletion potential (fossil) 29
Figure 4.11. Human toxicity potential, sludge 1 29
Figure 4.12. Human toxicity potential, sludge 3 29
Figure A1.1. Required iron (Fe) as a function of influent phosphorus concentration 47

vii
 List of Tables

Table 2.1. Categories of wastewater treatment systems and processes 3

Table 2.2. Percentage of OPEX attributable to labour for a range of plant sizes 4
Table 3.1. CML 2001 life cycle impact assessment categories 14
Table 3.2. Developed methodologies and tools to overcome the challenges identified in
the literature 17
Table 3.3. Wastewater treatment plant characteristics 21
Table 3.4. Influent wastewater sampling details 22
Table 4.1. Life cycle cost analyses (lowest LCC) 24
Table 4.2. Life cycle cost analyses (highest LCC) 25
Table 4.3. Distribution of preloaded WWTP data across identifiers (e.g. PE, cBOD,
etc.) and subdivisions (groupings considered: < 500 PE, etc.) 30
Table 4.4. Condensed results from the application of the comparable WWTP identifier
tool 31
Table 4.5. Agreement between flow-paced sampling and various grab sampling
frequencies 32
Table A1.1. Licensed treatment systems as a percentage of total licensed treatment
systems in Ireland 43
Table A1.2. Overview of some life cycle analysis studies conducted in Ireland 43
Table A1.3. Typical concentrations of wastewater pollutants 44
Table A1.4. Discharge limit variation 44
Table A1.5. Sludge treatment options 44
Table A1.6. Sludge dry solids concentrations assumed for the study 45
Table A1.7. Sludge disposal options and specific costs 45
Table A1.8. Aeration system parameters, reported value ranges and assumed values 46
Table A1.9. Pumping model parameters and assumed values 46
Table A1.10. Energy use assumptions for common unit processes 47
Table A1.11. Chemicals and specific costs 47
Table A1.12. Lime stabilisation dosage 47

viii
 List of Boxes

Box 3.1. Selected systems 10

ix
Executive Summary

Background provide (1) a framework and toolkit for assessing

the life cycle costs of several wastewater treatment
Wastewater treatment systems have significant
systems (economically and environmentally) and (2) a
economic and environmental benefits associated with
benchmarking toolkit to facilitate wastewater treatment
their construction and operation; however, like other
plant management.
such infrastructure, the economic and environmental
impacts of their construction and operation need to
Summary of Key Findings and Outcomes
be minimised. Economic costs, as well as capital,
operational, and environmental impacts, can vary with ●● Two software tools, DST and KPICalc, were
location because of specific site conditions. Variations developed.
in scale and loading and discharge limits can all affect ●● Effective and well-designed sampling of influent
the performance of a treatment system and solutions and effluent is key to ensuring that benchmarking
to optimise performance can often be site specific. is both accurate and useful. This report found that
grab sampling may not provide data of sufficient
One key challenge is selecting the most appropriate
quality for system operation and management.
treatment system for a given location. This requires an
●● Based on the specific user inputs, and from an
understanding of how each of the competing systems
economic life cycle perspective, constructed
will perform in a given scenario and how variation
wetlands were found to be a viable alternative
in performance influences each of the associated
to conventional electro-mechanical systems in
costs. Small agglomerations in particular face unique
locations where land availability at a reasonable
challenges in relation to their wastewater treatment
cost is not an issue. In addition, constructed
needs. Internationally, it has been acknowledged
wetlands have a more favourable environmental
that small-scale wastewater treatment plants can
profile due to reduced energy and chemical
be resource intensive when compared with larger
requirements.
plants. Many of the scale economies associated
●● Variations in plant scale, organic and inorganic
with wastewater treatment significantly increase as
loading, and discharge limits have a significant
agglomeration scales fall below 2000 population
effect on the economic and environmental
equivalent (PE). Historically, the main focus in
performance of electro-mechanical treatment
choosing wastewater treatment systems has been to
systems.
reduce capital costs while ensuring that the required
●● Economic and environmental economies of
effluent standards are met. However, because of the
scale were evident for most electro-mechanical
need to minimise the operational costs associated
systems. Scale economies are not as significant in
with wastewater treatment plants and their resource
constructed wetland systems because of the fixed
consumption, while meeting regulations, there has
linear relationship between population equivalent
been a growing focus on their life cycle cost and
and required unit area.
environmental performance. It is, therefore, evident
●● Energy use contributes significantly to both the
that appropriate economic and environmental
operational cost and environmental impact. The
assessment tools that consider the life cycle cost of
magnitude of the environmental impact is as
wastewater treatment plants holistically may assist in
much a function of the electrical grid mix as of the
the system selection process.
quantity of energy used.
The key objectives of this research were to develop ●● There are significant trade-offs between regional
software tools to assist in the selection and and global environmental impact categories. This
management of wastewater treatment systems, is largely dictated by a plant’s discharge limits, i.e.
with a specific focus on small wastewater treatment more stringent discharge limits will reduce regional
plants. The developed research software tools, the impact (eutrophication, toxicity) while increasing
decision support tool (DST) and KPICalc respectively, global impact (global warming, acidification).

xi
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants

Summary of Key Recommendations ● Constructed wetlands should be afforded due

consideration in locations where land availability is
● Economic cost evaluations and comparisons
not a limiting factor, subject to supporting business
should be carried out over the system lifetime
case analysis of competing processes on a case-
using appropriate life cycle costing models.
by-case basis.
● Broader environmental impacts can be considered
● Benchmarking of wastewater treatment plants
within design criteria, particularly in situations
should be further developed as a performance
where the life cycle costs of competing systems
optimisation and management tool. This will
are within a margin of uncertainty (it is assumed
require, in particular, the use of flow-proportional
chosen designs will be suitable to meet discharge
sampling at wastewater treatment plants.
limits).
● The development of methodologies to determine
● Sludge disposal costs are location-specific and
minimal data requirements for effectively
alternative disposal options should be assessed
implementing performance management, life
during life cycle cost assessment for competing
cycle analysis and benchmarking tools should be
systems.
considered.

xii
1 Introduction
The water and energy nexus is rightly receiving
attention from policymakers and researchers in an
effort to promote joined-up thinking on sustainable
energy and water supplies. The energy sector
uses significant amounts of water to source and
convert primary energy supplies, and the water and
wastewater treatment sectors use significant amounts
of energy to deliver and treat water and wastewater.
From the global perspective, 2–3% of the world’s
energy is used for water supply and sanitation
purposes (Olsson, 2012).
Energy requirements for wastewater treatment are a
function of several variables, including scale, influent
wastewater flow rates and concentrations, effluent
water discharge requirements, technology selection,
operating practices and control strategies. However,
it is important to note that energy is not the only
significant cost of operating wastewater treatment
plants (WWTPs); other important cost categories
include labour, chemicals and sludge management.
When selecting treatment technology options, the
cost of ownership, comprising both capital costs and
operational costs, should be assessed and optimised
across all cost categories and over the entire
lifetime of the WWTP. Furthermore, several of these
categories contribute to the broader environmental
impact of WWTPs and technology selection should be
considered carefully to mitigate adverse environmental
effects.
The focus of this project is small WWTPs, defined
for the purposes of this report as WWTPs with a
population equivalent (PE) < 2000. Ireland has a
particular landscape of WWTPs, with the vast majority
of Irish plants being classified as small. For example,
there are more than 500 agglomerations in Ireland
between 50 and 500 PE, and all of these are subject to
the Waste Water Discharge Authorisation Regulations.
Recent research reported that approximately
87% of Irish WWTPs treat agglomerations of less
than 10,000 PE (Shannon et al., 2014). The wide
distribution of small WWTPs in Ireland reflects the
low population densities beyond the larger cities and
towns. Internationally, decentralised WWTPs are
generally unstaffed (i.e. they may not have operational/
1
maintenance staff based on site) and can be more
likely to be infrequently maintained and have limited
monitoring and reporting capabilities (O’Reilly et al.,
2011). Choosing the optimal design for new plants and
operating existing plants effectively and efficiently are
complex matters and depend on a number of factors
and variables. A non-exhaustive list includes scale;
technology; loadings; discharge limits; WWTP location;
discharge location; local climate, flooding propensity
and topology; variation in incoming flows (industrial,
agricultural, domestic, mixed, etc.); management
priorities; feasibility of retrofitting economically; land
availability; sludge management; monitoring capability;
operational expertise; and cost.
The aim of this research, which builds on previous
research funded by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) (Fitzsimons et al., 2016), was to
develop methodologies, models and tools to assess,
compare and benchmark the performance of
small WWTPs from a number of perspectives: life
cycle cost, environmental performance, resource
consumption (energy and chemicals) and sludge
management. This study also investigated how
wastewater sampling can be optimised to provide
improved data for life cycle assessment (LCA),
benchmarking and other design/operational tools. The
overarching aim should be to operate plants that treat
wastewater in accordance with designated standards
at an acceptable environmental and economic cost.
However, it is not easy to benchmark, compare or
predict individual plant performances, considering that
WWTPs vary in scale, use different technologies or
technology configurations, treat to achieve different
effluent standards and accept influents with differing
compositions and concentrations.
1.1 Objectives
The key objectives of this project were to:
1. conduct and collate detailed research into the
state-of-the-art of sustainable, holistic, low-energy,
solutions for the wastewater treatment industry,
including the specific technologies that address
the challenges of small indigenous WWTPs;
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants
2. further optimise a key performance indicator (KPI)
benchmarking toolkit (KPICalc) initially proposed
in a previous project (Fitzsimons et al., 2016);
3. develop a methodology and framework to
holistically assess the life cycle costs and
environmental impact of representative small-
scale WWTPs;
4. develop a decision support tool (DST) for life cycle
costing and assessing environmental impact.
1.2 Project Outputs
The key outputs of this project include tools and
models that can support policymakers, regulators,
plant operators and researchers to manage existing
WWTPs and to assess and compare the life cycle
2
costs and environmental performance of wastewater
treatment systems (WWTSs). Specifically, these
outputs include:
●● KPI benchmarking software tools (KPICalc);
●● life cycle cost and life cycle environmental models
of representative Irish WWTPs;
●● a DST.
1.3 Report Structure
The report is broken down into a number of chapters
and sections. Chapter 2 presents an overview of the
relevant literature. Chapter 3 details the methodology
and model development. Chapter 4 presents and
discusses the key results of the research. Finally,
the project conclusions and recommendations are
presented in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6, respectively.
2 Literature Summary

2.1 Introduction conditions and how variation in performance will

ultimately influence cost. Conventional WWTSs can
The International Water Association (IWA) specialist
achieve high levels of pollutant removal; however, the
group on small WWTPs has defined small plants as
performance of each system will vary depending on
those serving agglomeration sizes of below 2000 PE
the type and quantity of substrate to be removed, and
or processing influent flow rates of below 200 m3/
thus the appropriate solution is always contextual and
day (Lens et al., 2001). The population distribution in
situational (Schumacher, 1989). This suggests there
Ireland is such that 587 WWTPs serve agglomerations
is no “one-size-fits-all” solution applicable to every
of below 2000 PE.1 Small agglomerations face
location or for every location where there is a system,
particular challenges in relation to their wastewater
or a system configuration that will outperform others.
treatment needs. Typically, at these agglomeration
The main problem is how to determine which system is
sizes, the per capita cost of wastewater treatment
most appropriate for a particular location. It has been
begins to show an exponential increase with
suggested that the selection of the most appropriate
decreasing scale. WWTSs have economic and
wastewater treatment technology is the biggest
environmental costs associated with their construction
challenge faced by wastewater treatment management
and operation. These costs vary with location because
(Molinos-Senante et al., 2015).
of the specific conditions under which a treatment
plant must be built and operated. Variations in
scale, organic loading, discharge limits, topography, 2.2 Wastewater Treatment Systems
temperature and other regional factors can influence and Processes
system performance to the extent that the suitability
Conventional WWTSs generally fall into one of four
of a particular system for a given location may be
categories: suspended growth, attached growth, hybrid
less than that of a competing system. Qualitative
and natural systems. Table 2.1 presents just some of
design criteria, such as robustness and reliability,
the systems commonly found in operation.
will eventually be reflected in a system’s total life
cycle cost (LCC). Therefore, if the optimum system
design can be considered as that which achieves 2.2.1 Natural wastewater treatment systems
the desired final effluent quality for the lowest cost,
Natural WWTSs are low energy consumers that
the choice of system requires an understanding of
require large surface areas over which to operate.
how alternative systems will perform under certain
They require minimal human or material input and

Table 2.1. Categories of wastewater treatment systems and processes

Suspended growth Attached growth Hybrid Natural

Conventional activated sludge
(CAS)
Anoxic oxic (AO)
Anaerobic anoxic oxic (AAO)
Sequence batch reactor (SBR)
Extended aeration (EA) –
oxidation ditch (OD)
Rotating biological contactors Membrane bioreactor (MBR) Constructed wetlands (CW)
(RBCs)
Trickling filter (TF) Moving bed biofilm reactor Reed bed
(MBBR)
Membrane aerated biofilm Integrated fixed-film activated Waste stabilisation pond
reactor sludge (IFAS)
Pumped flow biofilm reactor CAS/TF Aerated lagoon
Horizontal flow biofilm reactors RBC/reed bed Soil filters, sand filters

1 EPA-supplied data.

3
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants
thus can be suited to isolated locations (Solano et al.,
2004; Babatunde et al., 2008; Kayranli et al., 2010).
The percentage of operational expenditure (OPEX)
attributable to labour has been reported to be higher
for small WWTPs (Table 2.2) (Reicherter, 2003).
McEntee (2006) reported that CW maintenance costs
can be as little as 1/20th of those for a conventional
system and, therefore, these systems may prove to be
more economical than conventional systems in certain
situations.
Although often referred to as low-tech systems, the
mechanism by which pollutant removal is carried
out in natural systems is complex and specialised.
Each natural treatment system type has specific
strengths and limitations that make them better suited
to particular locations and conditions. The choice of
system will depend largely on the required effluent
quality and land availability. Vertical flow (VF) CWs
have a greater capacity to remove ammonia with
a reported required surface area of 3 m2/PE, while
horizontal flow (HF) CWs have a greater capacity for
total nitrogen (TN) removal but require a much greater
surface area (10 m2/PE) (Wallace and Knight, 2006).
Phosphorus removal in CW systems has had limited
success and an additional mechanical process may be
required where low-phosphorus effluent is required.
Combinations of natural systems are often integrated
to produce a particular effluent quality by utilising
pollutant removal mechanisms specific to each system
type (Belmont et al., 2004).
2.2.2 Conventional electro-mechanical
systems
Treatment is normally carried out through a series
of unit processes that remove solids and pollutants
through filtration, gravity settling, biological
decomposition or chemical precipitation. Each unit
process requires material and energy inputs, the
Table 2.2. Percentage of OPEX attributable to
labour for a range of plant sizes (Reicherter, 2003)
PE Percentage of OPEX attributable
to labour
< 10,000 35–40
10,000–100,000 25
> 100,000 15
Data sourced and adapted from Reicherter (2003).
4
quantities of which vary depending on system type,
system configuration and site-specific conditions.
Suspended growth systems employ energy-intensive
aeration to achieve biological oxidation of the
wastewater substrate. The level of aeration required
will depend on a plant’s organic loading and discharge
limits. Ammonium removal may require up to 30%
more aeration energy and TN reduction will require
varying levels of material and energy depending on
system configuration.
While most suspended growth systems utilise
chemicals to achieve phosphorus removal, biological
phosphorus removal can be achieved with the
AAO system; however, when very low phosphorus
effluent concentrations are required, combinations
of biological and/or chemical processes, as well as
other processes (e.g. absorption), may be required.
Attached growth systems achieve biological aeration
through different means and, therefore, have
different energy sinks. RBCs deliver the biomass to
atmospheric air on partially submerged discs that
rotate continuously in and out of the wastewater. The
motors that drive disc rotation are the main energy
sink in RBC systems. TFs distribute the wastewater
over an attached growth media filter bed and may
require a significant pumping energy input. A typical
TF energy consumption value of 0.093 kWh/m3 has
been reported (Metcalf & Eddy, 2014); however, this
value is likely to increase as system size decreases.
Furthermore, depending on the desired loading rates,
a TF system may require forced draft aeration, which
introduces another energy sink to TF systems. As
with suspended growth systems, nutrient removal
with attached growth systems requires additional
energy and material inputs. Phosphorus removal using
attached growth systems has had limited success and
generally requires chemical input. Hybrid WWTSs are
designed to achieve a specific final effluent quality by
combining processes from different systems. The IFAS
system combines the robustness of attached growth
systems with the flexibility of suspended growth
systems to achieve high-quality effluent in cases
where available surface area is minimal (Johnson et
al., 2006).
In general, conventional electro-mechanical WWTSs
can be more material and energy intensive than some
natural systems (von Sperling, 1996; Gratziou et al.,
2006; McEntee, 2006; Kalbar et al., 2013; Rawal and
 L. Fitzsimons et al. (2014-W-DS-16)
Duggal, 2016), although, as mentioned above, this will
depend on site-specific requirements.
2.3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis
The term “life cycle cost” (LCC) was first introduced
in 1965 in a report entitled “Life cycle costing in
equipment procurement” (LMI, 1965). The report
determined that the cost of system acquisition may
be low in relation to the cost of system ownership
(Eisenberger and Lorden, 1977). Early cost
assessment methods used for system selection often
centred on the initial capital expenditure (CAPEX)
(Woodward, 1997), with secondary consideration
given to operation and maintenance costs. This
approach was limited and did not always recommend
the most cost-effective system. WWTPs in particular
have widely varying, system-specific operational
costs, which, when considered over the lifetime of the
system, can outweigh any differences in initial CAPEX.
Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is a holistic approach
used to assess the economic feasibility of a system
over the entirety of its predicted lifetime (Arditi and
Messiha, 1999). The LCCA methodology provides a
comprehensive assessment of costs and trade-offs
between competing alternatives by accounting for
both CAPEX and projected OPEX over the lifetime
of a product, service or system (Dhillon, 2009). The
net present value (NPV) method is commonly used to
calculate LCCs (equation 2.1).
⎡ 1 ⎤ technosphere and the surrounding ecosphere. The
NPV = Initialcost + ∑ FutureCostk ⎢ ⎥ application of an LCA to a WWTP was first reported in
k =1
⎣ (1+ d)nk ⎦  (2.1)
where the initial cost is CAPEX in year 0, n is the year
of expenditure, k is the item of expenditure and,d is
the discount rate. Several studies have demonstrated
the value of the LCCA approach in WWTS cost
assessment. Rawal and Duggal (2016) found that
LCCA was most suitable for solving complicated
WWTS selection issues such as resource allocation
and maintenance management. Johnson et al. (2006)
employed LCCA to elucidate many of the cost factors
that must be considered when considering IFAS
system implementation, such as land, growth media
and construction cost indices. Pretel et al. (2016)
combined LCCA and LCA to illustrate the economic
and environmental performances that can be achieved
with anaerobic MBRs. The recurring theme in these
studies was the significant variation in OPEX from
5
system to system and the variation in the CAPEX/
OPEX ratio. These studies underlined the importance
of considering both CAPEX and OPEX over the
system’s lifetime.
2.4 Life Cycle Assessment
LCA is an analytical tool that provides a holistic
approach to assessing the environmental performance
of a product or system from cradle to grave (Tillman
and Baumann, 2004). In Ireland the LCA approach
has been widely accepted as a valid environmental
assessment tool by government, academia and
parts of the private sector (Table A1.2 in Appendix 1
presents details of some of the LCA studies conducted
in Ireland to date). The EPA has stated that “In the
coming decade, businesses will increasingly be
required through regulatory approaches to undertake
life cycle assessment for their goods and services
and to adopt eco-label standards” (EPA, 2016). Public
agencies are compiling data to assist with this effort.
In Ireland, a Carbon Management Tool has been
developed to help businesses assess their carbon
output (Irish Environment, 2016). In Northern Ireland,
the Waste Management Strategy is based on an
LCA that considers how waste can be minimised and
recovered at every stage in production processes
(Irish Environment, 2016). The application of LCAs to
wastewater treatment is particularly appropriate owing
to the nature of the relationship between a plant’s
The Netherlands in 1997 to examine the sustainability
of municipal wastewater treatment (Roeleveld et al.,
1997). The study concluded that improvements in the
environmental performance of wastewater treatment
should focus on minimising effluent discharge
pollutants and sludge production, and that the impact
from energy consumption was negligible. However,
Gallego et al. (2008) subsequently concluded that
the environmental loading associated with energy
production for use in the treatment process was one
of the main contributors to the overall environmental
profile of WWTPs. Since the initial study in The
Netherlands, over 40 LCA studies had been published
in peer-reviewed journals up to 2013 (Corominas
et al., 2013). These studies covered a variety of
objectives, which included assessing changes in
system configuration (Tillman et al., 1998), variations
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants
in boundaries and scale (Lundin et al., 2000),
structural changes (Vidal et al., 2002) and competing
technologies (Kalbar et al., 2013). In recent times,
there has been a paradigm shift in environmental
assessment of treatment systems from considering not
only water quality and human health but also energy
and resource recovery (Corominas et al., 2013).
2.5 Wastewater Treatment Plant
Management and Performance
Assessment
Across Europe, challenges surrounding management
practices and the education and training of staff in
the water sector have been exacerbated by issues
regarding ageing infrastructure and a lack of efficient
wastewater treatment (Heino et al., 2011). These
challenges are also present to varying degrees within
the Irish context; population is on the rise and there is
an ongoing need to upgrade WWTPs that do not meet
regulatory requirements. Furthermore, there may be a
need to further upgrade WWTPs to meet the potential
future demand to remove pathogens and emerging
contaminants (e.g. pharmaceutical products).
Ensuring regulatory compliance while operating in an
environmentally sustainable manner (among other
responsibilities) can result in WWTP management
becoming a complex process. Performance
assessment and benchmarking have developed
as a key aspect of WWTP management and, when
systematically applied, these tools can be effective in
the management of WWTPs.
Benchmarking is the systematic process of searching
for best practices and effective operating procedures
that lead to increased performance and the
subsequent adaptation of these practices to improve
the performance of an organisation (Parena and
Smeets, 2001; Cabrera et al., 2009). Benchmarking
is a data-driven process and can be successful only
if careful consideration is given to data availability
and accuracy. Improved data management practices
can be achieved through WWTP performance
assessment and benchmarking; WWTPs in countries
that have employed benchmarking for several years
have expanded their data acquisition and reliability.
To address data availability during the early years
of a performance assessment or benchmarking
2 https://www.water.ie/news/proposed-capital-investme/Proposed-Capital-Investment-Plan-2014-2016.pdf
6
project, it is necessary to identify interim methods and
acquisition strategies to maximise the potential initially
and thereafter the ongoing benefits of benchmarking.
The data utilised in this study were taken from public
sources (e.g. annual environmental reports) and
measured by the research team at various sites.
Two important areas affect the ability of managers
to efficiently and effectively operate WWTPs: (1)
process monitoring and (2) challenges associated with
data acquisition, storage and analysis. Performance
assessment methodologies provide solutions to these
issues while also facilitating WWTP benchmarking
and performance improvement. Typical performance
assessment and performance improvement
(benchmarking) processes are shown in Figure 2.1.
Repetition of these processes will promote continuous
improvement of WWTP performance.
Continual performance assessment and benchmarking
can be implemented in WWTPs using software
applications, the benefits of which include reduced
WWTP manager/operator workload and process
standardisation. However, WWTP benchmarking
can be complicated; accurate and reliable data are
essential (Lindtner et al., 2008) and benchmarks
require careful interpretation (Torregrossa et al., 2016).
Flow monitoring is one of the key data sources for
WWTPs, and is provided for in most larger and more
recently constructed WWTPs in Ireland, The operation
and maintenance of flow meters is required by
regulation [under the Environmental Protection Agency
Act (1992)] and issues with flow monitoring (e.g.
meters that are improperly installed, outside calibration
or inadequately maintained) are reported in annual
environmental reports (e.g. EPA, 2015). In 2015,
EPA audits identified 68 WWTPs with no continuous
flow meter in place on the effluent stream and 51
WWTPs that failed to provide a composite sampler
for compliance monitoring purposes (EPA, 2015).2
Historically, poor calibration and a lack of provision of
flow meters were identified as general issues in Irish
WWTPs, which resulted in many WWTPs being unable
to collect accurate flow data. Inaccurate or unavailable
flow metering is a key impediment to benchmarking, as
it is a fundamental parameter for many standard KPI
metrics. It should be noted that a capital programme
and a business plan to address these issues was
 L. Fitzsimons et al. (2014-W-DS-16)

Select KPIs
Repeat

Identify and
implement Assess data
process requirements
optimisation
measures
Collect data
(process
Compare results performance
against peers monitoring)

Calculate KPIs

Figure 2.1. Typical performance assessment (yellow) and performance improvement/benchmarking (blue)
processes using key performance indicators (KPIs).

put in place by Irish Water.3 Following asset survey WWTPs in China reported that energy consumption
reports, WWTPs in need of an upgrade are being per unit of wastewater treated decreased with
identified and improvement works carried out. The use increasing WWTP loading due to the scale effect
of mobile sampling units in some areas can also be during the operation of WWTPs (Tao and Chengwen,
considered if appropriate. 2012). In addition, energy consumption results [kWh/
m3 treated and kWh/kg chemical oxygen demand
Energy consumption in WWTPs is influenced by a
(COD) removed] were affected by the percentage
number of factors, including WWTP size (economies
of design capacity utilised in a WWTP (Tao and
of scale) (Mizuta and Shimada, 2010), influent
Chengwen 2012). Because of the scale effect,
characteristics and discharge limits (which define
comparing energy consumption KPI results across
the degree of pollutant removal required to meet
WWTPs of varying scale is not a valid approach.
compliance) and the technologies employed (Yang
While the reported energy consumption results often
et al., 2010) along with the age and condition of the
consider the volume of wastewater treated at each
asset/technologies, and historic and current operation
WWTP, the kWh/m3 metric cannot take into account
and maintenance regimes. Accounting for all of these
the effects of scale or the extent to which design
influences when reporting energy consumption as
capacity is being utilised.
part of WWTP performance benchmarking can be
challenging (Longo et al., 2016). Many WWTP performance benchmarking methods
require wastewater pollutant concentration data, which
Large-scale WWTPs are reported to have some
may often be scarce (Rieger et al., 2010; Talebizadeh
economic benefits over small-scale WWTPs, including,
et al., 2016). This scarcity is linked to the high cost, in
in some cases, a reduction in energy consumption
terms of workload and financial resources, associated
per unit of wastewater treated (Mizuta and Shimada,
with long-term experimental collection of wastewater
2010). The cost of wastewater treatment per PE per
quality data (Martin and Vanrolleghem, 2014).
year has been reported to decrease with increasing
Flow-paced sampling typically provides the most
WWTP design capacity in WWTPs in Switzerland
representative means of collecting wastewater data;
(Thaler, 2009). A study of the energy consumption in
however, its application in many small-scale WWTPs

3 https://www.water.ie/docs/Irish-Water-Business-Plan.pdf

7
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants

may not be feasible because of the high costs and
maintenance associated with flow meter and sampler
management. In some WWTPs, such as those that
employ sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) as part of
the treatment process, influent is delivered in regular
batches, which can result in reduced influent variability.
Therefore, some WWTPs may be able to employ
more cost-effective sampling methods, such as grab
sampling, to collect representative samples.
Carlson and Walburger (2007) observed that
comparing energy use between WWTPs can be
a valuable exercise for performance improvement
schemes when peer or comparable WWTPs are
correctly identified by their load and operational
conditions. This requirement applies across all WWTP
KPIs, as benchmarking between WWTPs should
occur only if the WWTPs are comparable (Matos et
al., 2003). Many factors (e.g. WWTP size, discharge
regulations) can complicate the identification of
comparable WWTPs for benchmarking purposes.
2.6 Conclusion
This chapter has considered and reviewed some of
the approaches associated with determining optimal
system selection for small WWTPs from both an
economic and an environmental perspective. In
addition, the challenges associated with comparing
and benchmarking WWTP performance, such as
variability in scale and technology, data availability and
data accuracy, have been outlined.

8
 3 Methodology and Toolkit Development

3.1 Economic and Environmental 3.1.1 System selection

Life Cycle Cost Analysis
In order to identify suitable WWTSs for inclusion in
An overview of the procedure adopted for this study the study, a survey was conducted of the 538 licensed
is presented in Figure 3.1. It should be noted that WWTPs in Ireland (see Table A1.1). Suspended
the primary objective of this section of the report is growth systems are the most common system type in
to demonstrate a framework/methodology that can Ireland, accounting for almost 60% of all systems. Of
Methodology and Toolkit Development
be used to assist with the WWTS selection process, these, CAS systems account for over 36%, with EA,4
specifically by quantifying the main economic and SBR, IFAS and MBBR systems accounting for the
environmental
Economic and costEnvironmental
components in a life cycle
Life context.
Cycle remainder. Attached growth systems (excluding hybrid
Cost Analysis
Where possible, specific cost data have been acquired IFAS and MBBR systems) account for less than 10%.
verview of the procedure adopted for this study is presented in Figure 3.1. It should be noted that the
from Irish sources, but many of the data are taken Biofilter, pump flow bioreactors and MBR systems
ary objective of this section of the report is to demonstrate a framework/methodology that can be used
from international sources. However, the specific collectively account for just over 1%. Integrated
sist with the WWTS selection process, specifically by quantifying
cost data could be considered arbitrary, as they are the main economic and
constructed environmental
wetlands (ICWs) are the primary natural
components inrequired
a life cycle
onlycontext.
to assistWhere possible,
with the specificofcost
demonstration the data have
system been acquired
type from Irish
and account for less than 0.5% of all
ces, but many ofmethodology.
the data are taken from international academic literature. systems.
It shouldReed
also beds are commonly
be noted that used as a tertiary
treatment stage
study conducts a specific cost comparison of WWTSs using Irish cost data. In one sense, the specific in some smaller plants but could
not be considered for inclusion as a stand-alone
data could be considered arbitrary, as they are required only to assist with the demonstration of the
system. Several factors were considered in relation
odology.
to the systems that should be included in the study.
The selected systems should be representative of
System selection Irish WWTSs or those that might feasibly be used in
small-scale applications. The quantity of data required
for the economic life cycle cost inventory (LCCI) and
System model development the environmental life cycle inventory (LCI) was also
considered. If sufficient system-specific data could not
be sourced, the system was excluded.
Economic and environmental inventory
compilation An ICW design is generally bespoke and heavily
dependent on regional geography and topography,
which makes it challenging to present any standard
LCC model development design format for these systems. Furthermore, ICW
systems provide additional benefits beyond that of a
WWTS, such as the ability to treat agricultural run-off,
LCA model development restoring potentially lost environmental infrastructure,
and providing public amenities and tourist attractions.
These additional benefits are difficult to capture within
Decision support tool design an economic and environmental cost assessment
model. Nevertheless, it was determined that a natural
system should be included to illustrate the cost
Systems analyses savings that can be achieved when land availability
is not a limiting factor and land cost is not excessive.
e 3 1. Overview of study procedure.
Figure 3.1. Overview of study procedure. Therefore, a hybrid horizontal flow–vertical flow

System selection
4 The percentage of EA systems also includes oxidation ditches. The terms were used interchangeably throughout the survey of
der to identify suitable WWTSs for inclusion in the study, a survey was conducted of the 538 licensed
plants.
TPs in Ireland (see Table A1.1). Suspended growth systems are the most common system type in
nd, accounting for almost 60% of all systems. Of these, CAS systems account for over 36%, with EA,4
IFAS and MBBR systems accounting for the remainder. Attached growth9 systems (excluding hybrid
and MBBR systems) account for less than 10%. Biofilter, pump flow bioreactors and MBR systems
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants
(HF-VF) CW system with nitrification and denitrification
capacity was included in the study. The IFAS and
MBBR systems can be easily retrofitted to existing
CAS, AO, and AAO systems and provide a means
to increase capacity without significantly increasing
surface area requirements. However, both systems are
quite similar in construct and operation, with the main
difference being the lack of a return activated sludge
line in the MBBR system. It was determined that the
inclusion of both would add little to the study and,
therefore, only the IFAS system has been included.
The systems included in the study are presented
in Box 3.1, and general system schematics are
presented in Figure 3.2 (note that each system can
include a variety of internal recycle lines, step-feeds,
external carbon sources or return activated sludge
lines in various positions; for clarity, these are not
included).
3.1.2 System model development
Reviews of the literature have found that, for most
systems, over 90% of OPEX can be attributed
to energy, labour (including laboratory work and
administration), sludge disposal and chemicals (US
EPA, 1981; Wendland, 2005). The cost of replacement
parts for natural, suspended growth and attached
growth systems, over their life cycles, was reported to
range from 3% to 10% of the initial CAPEX (Rawal and
Duggal, 2016). Therefore, the OPEX target quantities
Box 3.1. Selected systems
Treatment system
Single stage complete mix activated sludge
Integrated fixed-film activated sludge
Anoxic oxic
Anaerobic anoxic oxic
Constructed wetland
Trickling filter
Rotating biological contactor
Extended aeration
Oxidation ditch
Sequence batch reactor
5 Conventional activated sludge (CAS), sometimes referred to as activated sludge (AS), is an umbrella term for all activated sludge
processes. Complete mix activated sludge (CMAS) is a term used to differentiate it from the plug flow activated sludge process.
10
considered in this study were energy consumption,
chemical use, sludge production and labour hours.
System modelling of complete mix activated sludge
(CMAS),5 AO, AAO, EA, IFAS and SBR systems was
based on the methodologies presented by Metcalf
& Eddy (2014). The OD model is as presented by
Davis (2010) and the TF and RBC system models are
sourced from Metcalf & Eddy (2014). CW modelling
was based on studies conducted by Gikas et al. (2014)
and Vymazal (2005, 2010).
3.1.3 Economic data acquisition
CAPEX data for CMAS, AO, AAO, RBC, and SBR
systems were sourced from Foess et al. (1998), for
TF and OD systems from Gratziou et al. (2006), for
IFAS systems from Johnson et al. (2004) and for CW
systems from Gkika et al. (2014). Power law CAPEX
cost curves were developed from the compiled data
and normalised to reflect equivalent costs in Ireland.
Operational cost data, such as the specific costs of
chemicals, energy and sludge disposal, were compiled
from several sources in Ireland.
3.1.4 Life cycle cost model
Figure 3.3 presents the LCC cost distribution
framework for the systems’ LCC models.
Combinations of present value (PV) methods are used
to estimate the LCCs. The single present value (SPV)
method estimates one-off or infrequent costs such
as parts replacement and end-of-life residual value.
The uniform present value (UPV) method is used to
estimate recurring operational costs. The individual
PVs are combined with the initial CAPEX to yield the
total LCC. Details of the LCC calculation methods
and representative data values used in the model are
provided in sections A1.2 and A1.3.
3.1.5 Life cycle assessment model
The LCA format adopted for the study adheres to
the framework presented in the ISO 14040 series of
standards (ISO, 1997, 1998, 2000; Lecouls, 1999) and
references guidelines on the standards published by
Guinée et al. (2001). The LCA software used is GaBi
6.0. The GaBi LCI database provided by Thinkstep
 L. Fitzsimons et al. (2014-W-DS-16)
Figure 3.2. System

CMAS/IFAS system (BOD + ammonium removal)

Influent Inlet Primary Aeration Secondary Effluent

works settling tank settling

Sludge Sludge
Sludge
treatment

CMAS system with denitrification

Influent Inlet Primary Aeration Post- Secondary Effluent

works settling tank anoxic settling

Sludge Sludge
Sludge
treatment
AO/IFAS system

Influent Inlet Primary Anoxic Aeration Secondary Effluent

works settling tank tank settling

Sludge Sludge
Sludge
treatment

AAO system

Influent Inlet Primary Anoxic Anaerobic Aeration Secondary Effluent

works settling tank tank tank settling

Sludge Sludge
Sludge
treatment
Optional
CW system

Influent Inlet Anaerobic Effluent

HF-CW VF-CW
works zone

Sludge Sludge
Sludge
treatment

Figure 3.2. System schematics. BOD, biological oxygen demand.

18

11
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants

Trickling filter system

Influent Inlet Primary Trickling Secondary Effluent

works settling filter settling

Sludge Sludge
Sludge
treatment

Trickling filter system with denitrification

Influent Inlet Primary Trickling Post- Secondary Effluent

works settling filter anoxic settling

Sludge Sludge
Sludge
treatment
RBC system

Influent Inlet Primary Secondary Effluent

RBC
works settling settling

Sludge Sludge
Sludge
treatment
EA system

Influent Inlet Drum Extended Secondary Effluent

works screen aeration settling

Sludge Sludge
Sludge
treatment
OD system

Influent Inlet Drum Oxidation Secondary Effluent

works screen ditch settling

Sludge Sludge
Sludge
treatment

schematics.
Figure 3.2. Continued.
3.1.2 System model development

Reviews of the literature have found that, for most systems, over 90% of OPEX can be attributed to energy,
labour (including laboratory work and administration), sludge disposal and chemicals (US EPA, 1981;

19
12
values used in the model are provided in sections A1.2 and A1.3.
Figure 3.3. Life cycle cost distribution. L. Fitzsimons et al. (2014-W-DS-16)
CAPEX
Engineering
Civil works
Construction
Mechanical
Electrical
Management
Land cost
Contingency
Figure 3.3. Life cycle cost distribution.
(formerly PE International) contains inventory data
for upstream and downstream processes. The
functional unit was defined as “1 day of operation”.
The boundaries of each system include all LCIs for
energy and chemical production from cradle to grave,
including sludge transport and application to land,
and aerial and unit process emissions. The life cycle
impact assessment methodology used in this study is
that developed by the CML (Institute of Environmental
Sciences, Leiden University) in 2001, which is
compliant with the ISO 14040 series and has been
adopted by authors of similar studies (Hospido et al.,
2008). The impact category definitions for the CML
methodology are presented in Table 3.1.
3.1.6 Decision support tool
The DST was developed on the Microsoft Excel
2010 platform. The program was designed to assist
in WWTP selection process by providing economic,
energetic and environmental system-specific
information for a range of user-defined, site-specific
scenarios. Previous research established that
the parameters that have the largest influence
on system performance and selection are scale,
loading, discharge limits and land availability. These
parameters have been soft coded to allow for user-
defined, site-specific variability. In addition, the choice
of sludge treatment and disposal was found to have a
significant influence on operational cost and, therefore,
it was determined that the toolkit should provide sludge
treatment and disposal alternatives. An overview of
LCC
OPEX Parts replacement
Energy Pumps
Labour Motors
Chemicals Growth media
Sludge disposal
the user input parameters and the program outputs
is presented in Figure 3.4. The DST user interface is
presented below (Figures 3.5 to 3.7).
20 plant loading,
Within the DST, the user inputs include
discharge limits and sludge treatment options. The
program outputs life cycle CAPEX and OPEX costs,
predicted energy and chemicals consumption values,
predicted energy distributions, and environmental
impact data, all on a system-specific basis. The tool
also readily facilitates system comparison across a
range of these parameters and over several metrics;
for example, energy consumption can be compared
with water treated (per cubic metre) or contaminant
removed (per kilogram).
The program assesses WWTP steady-state
performance and calculates all required operational
quantities on a 24-hour-per-day basis. Energy
modelling includes fine-bubble diffused aeration,
horizontal surface aeration, TF pumping and RBC
motor energy. Other pumping energy sinks, such as
return activated sludge and nitrate recycling, have
also been included. Energy sinks common to all
systems, such as inlet works, primary and secondary
sedimentation, volute operation and municipal
energy (lighting, administration, building), have been
estimated from the academic literature, engineering
reports and manufacturers’ design specifications.
Chemical consumption and sludge production
calculations are based on the user-defined discharge
limits and loading. Labour estimates are based on
data published by the New England Interstate Water
13
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants

Table 3.1. CML 2001 life cycle impact assessment categories

Impact category Abbreviation Units

Global warming potential GWP kg CO2 equiv.
Acidification potential AP kg SO2 equiv.
Eutrophication potential EP kg PO43– equiv.
Ozone depletion potential (steady state) ODP kg R11 equiv.a
Photochemical oxidation potential PCOP kg C2H6 equiv.
Ecotoxicity kg C6H4Cl2 equiv.
Freshwater aquatic toxicity potential FAETP infinite
Terrestrial toxicity potential TETP infinite
Marine aquatic toxicity potential MAETP infinite
Human toxicity potential HTP infinite kg C6H4Cl2 equiv.
Abiotic depletion elements ADPe kg Sb equiv.
Abiotic depletion fossil ADPf MJ
a
The refrigerant R11 is a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC).

Figure 3.4. Decision support tool program overview.

Figure 3.5. User input screen.

14
 L. Fitzsimons et al. (2014-W-DS-16)
Figure 3.6. System information screen.
Figure 3.7. System comparison screen.
Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC, 2008).
The program includes default values for specific
operational costs, such as energy and chemicals, but
also additional controls to allow for regional variance.
LCCs are estimated for a 24-year system lifetime.
Separate discount rates were used for energy PVs
(5%) and OPEX PVs (3.5%) to allow for frequent
variations in energy prices (these can be changed
15
by the user). A system depreciation value of 3.5%
was used to determine residual value at the end of
the system lifetime. Additional quantities required
for the environmental component include aerial
emissions from unit processes and transport. Process
emissions of CO2, N2O and CH4 were based on the
study conducted by Machado et al. (2007). Transport
emissions from sludge disposal and chemical delivery
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants

were based on an average distance of 25 km but can The most prominent challenge to successful
also be user defined. performance assessment identified in the literature is
that of data availability; without sufficient data, many of
The results obtained from the DST presented and
the other challenges in Table 3.2, such as assessing
discussed in this report are based on specific user
data accuracy and identifying comparable WWTPs,
inputs, which are a combination of values from the
become increasingly complex, if not impossible. Each
literature and theoretical models. Relevant, detailed
of the tools and methodologies developed in this
Irish data were requested from Irish Water, but these
research took account of data availability issues. The
data were not available during the course of this
aim was to overcome and adapt to this challenge, in
research. However, the research undertaken and the
particular by allowing users to input their perception
developed model serve as a framework to assess and
of how accurate data might be. In addition, the
compare the effects of changes to key parameters for
developed tools and methodologies can improve
WWTSs in terms of OPEX and CAPEX, as well as
WWTP management practices when implemented at a
environmental impact.
national level.

To overcome the challenges identified in the literature,

3.2 Performance Assessment and
Benchmarking
From a review of existing literature, the need for
a performance assessment methodology that can
address the key gaps in the literature was clear. These
gaps are summarised in Figure 3.8.
three methodologies and tools (Table 3.2) have been
developed: (1) a performance assessment toolkit,
KPICalc; (2) a comparable WWTP identification tool;
and (3) a methodology for assessing the statistical
agreement between wastewater sampling methods.

Figure 3.8. Challenges facing WWTP benchmarking methodologies.

16
 Table 3.2. Developed methodologies and tools to overcome the challenges identified in the literature

Definitions of Environmental Adapting to data Applicability and Assessing Benchmarking Improvement Identifying
benchmarking sustainability availability selection of KPIs data accuracy energy of WWTP comparable
in limited data consumption management WWTPs
environments practices
KPICalc
ü ü ü ü ü ü ü

17
performance
assessment toolkit
Comparable
WWTP
ü ü ü ü
identification tool
Sampling
methods statistical
ü ü
agreement
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants

3.2.1 Performance assessment methodology
development
The performance assessment methodology, KPICalc,
was developed to address the challenges shown in
Figure 3.8. KPICalc was developed using Microsoft
Excel as the working platform because it has the data
entry, calculation, graphing and coding capabilities
required to implement and test the methodology and
is widely used and available in the wastewater sector.
KPICalc was designed to be used as a performance
assessment tool or as a performance improvement
tool when combined with the comparable WWTP
identification tool. Figure 3.9 details the framework

Figure 3.9. KPICalc framework.

18
 L. Fitzsimons et al. (2014-W-DS-16)
behind KPICalc; modules that require user input are
shown in yellow, with automated processes shown in
blue.
Initially, the end user (engineer, facility manager,
etc.) completes a short survey, which enables
the automatic selection of KPIs to be used for the
remainder of the KPICalc process. On completion of
the survey regarding available data sources, the user
is required to rate the accuracy of each data source.
The user-perceived accuracy assessment step in
the methodology provides an insight into the degree
of data accuracy issues for a WWTP by highlighting
the number of KPIs that cannot be included in
benchmarking because of data accuracy issues. This
incentivises the user to correct these data accuracy
issues, which in itself can lead to improvements in
WWTP performance.
Once the survey is complete, data sources are
identified as available/unavailable and accurate/
inaccurate and are matched to corresponding KPIs.
Each KPI is then defined as available, unavailable or
available pending corrective action. The customised
(based on the survey) data entry module for WWTP
data enables users to enter data as frequently as
is desired or available. By default, KPICalc will
calculate only KPIs based on data sources identified
as accurate by the user. KPICalc utilises calculated
KPI results to track the performance of the facility
in relation to user-defined targets. KPICalc will also
give headline information regarding the performance
trends “performance improving”, “performance
remaining steady” or “performance declining”, where
each headline reports the change in performance
from month to month. Reporting dashboards and PDF
reports of KPI results are available to provide a means
of focusing on results from one aspect of WWTP
performance (e.g. energy usage).
3.2.2 Comparable wastewater treatment plant
identification tool
Comparing the performance of WWTPs without first
assessing the disparities between the operational
conditions that might affect their performance can
lead to incorrect deductions from performance
assessments. Regular reassessment of WWTP
comparability is required because of changing
discharge licences and WWTP loadings and
capacities; therefore, a Microsoft Excel-based tool was
19
developed to identify comparable WWTPs in a rapid
and standardised manner. Although this study focused
on WWTPs with PE < 2000, this tool was designed
to incorporate all WWTPs. A process diagram of the
comparable WWTP identification tool is presented in
Figure 3.10.
The identification of comparable WWTPs is based
on WWTP design capacity (or WWTP loading)
and the discharge limits with which a WWTP must
comply. In the developed methodology, these
WWTP characteristics are called identifiers. Each
identifier is split into subdivisions to account for
economies of scale (in the case of WWTP size primary
identifiers) and the difficulty associated with meeting
stringent discharge requirements (in the case of
discharge limits). The toolkit recommends the use of
carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD),
ammonium and orthophosphate as the discharge
limit identifiers, as these are most commonly applied
discharge limits in WWTPs.
Initially, the user is asked to select comparable WWTP
identifiers from a series of drop-down menus. The
recommended identifiers are automatically selected;
however, users can select alternative identifiers.
The user must then select subdivisions for each
identifier; again the recommended subdivisions are
automatically entered and users can adapt these to
suit their needs. Finally, the user can select the data
preloaded in the tool for 355 licensed and operational
Irish WWTPs, enter new data or make changes to the
existing dataset.
Automated grouping of comparable WWTPs occurs
instantly once the user has selected the identifiers,
subdivisions and dataset. Based on the comparable
WWTP identifiers and subdivisions selected by
the user, the tool automatically assesses each
WWTP in the dataset, assigns a series of identifiers
and segments these results further based on the
subdivisions selected. Following this, the tool creates
groups (the number of groups equals the number of
possible combinations of identifiers and subdivisions)
and populates these groups with WWTPs that meet
the characteristics of each group.
The comparable WWTP identification tool reports
results to the user both in an interactive results
dashboard format and as PDF reports. The results
dashboard comprises a graphical representation
(similar to a Venn diagram) of the results (Figure 3.10).
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants
Figure 3.10. Comparable WWTP identifier tool process chart.
Each dashboard serves as a rapid method of
assessing the number of WWTPs within a comparable
group.
3.3 Assessment of the Statistical
Agreement between Wastewater
Sampling Methods for Daily
WWTP Benchmarking Purposes
WWTPs commonly rely on the use of wastewater
sampling and laboratory analysis methods to quantify
20
the concentration of pollutants in wastewater. Because
it is useful to utilise wastewater quality data as part
of the KPI calculation, it is necessary to ensure
that the time series of the wastewater quality data
matches that of the other variables used in the KPI
calculation. Furthermore, the widespread use of
pollutant concentration data in WWTP performance
benchmarking requires that the data should be
collected in a reliable and representative manner.
Although flow-paced sampling is typically the most
representative means of collecting wastewater data,
 L. Fitzsimons et al. (2014-W-DS-16)

its application in many small-scale WWTPs may not be
feasible because of the high costs and maintenance
associated with flow meter and sampler management.
As a result, it was necessary to assess if an alternative,
more feasible, method may be suitable for collecting
data for WWTP performance benchmarking purposes.
To do this, the statistical agreement of the daily mean
concentrations of influent wastewater characteristics,
obtained in two WWTPs (Table 3.3) was assessed
using a number of grab-sampling methods and a flow-
paced method (Figure 3.11).

Figure 3.11. Flowchart of the daily sampling methods and agreement assessments of various methods.

Table 3.3. Wastewater treatment plant characteristics

Characteristic WWTP A WWTP B

Treatment technology Activated sludge with phosphorus removal Imhoff tank and TFs
Influent flow type Batch delivery of influent from external pumping Continuous flow
station to WWTP designed for continuous flow
Influent characteristics Municipal wastewater and imported sludge Municipal wastewater only
Design capacity (as BOD) 24,834 PE 700 PE
Organic loading 13,640 PE 1483 PE
Hydraulic capacity (DWF) (m /year)
3
1,303,780 51,100
Hydraulic capacity (peak flow) (m3/year) 1,847,995 153,300
Hydraulic loading (m3/year) 1,959,788 162,522

BOD, biochemical oxygen demand; DWF, dry weather flow.

21
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants

Table 3.4. Influent wastewater sampling details

Characteristic WWTP A WWTP B

Sampling dates 23/07/2016 to 24/08/2016 26/07/2016 to 24/08/2016
Number of days 30 30
Flow stream sampled Influent Influent
Automatic sampler (flow-paced) ISCO 5800 ISCO 4700
Flow meter ISCO 4250s ISCO 4250s
Flow-paced sample details One daily flow-paced composite sample One daily flow-paced composite sample
(approximately 100 aliquots) (approximately 100 aliquots)
Number of daily flow-paced 31 30
samples collected
Automatic sampler (grab samples) Aquacell S320 Aquacell S320
Grab sample details 6 grab samples (1000 ml) collected at 4-hour 6 grab samples (1000 ml) collected at 4-hour
intervals intervals
Number of grab samples collected 180 179

Flow-paced composite sampling and grab sampling
was carried out on the influent stream of two WWTPs
of varying characteristics for approximately 30 days
(Table 3.3).
Details of the sampling methodologies applied in the
selected WWTPs are given in Table 3.4. Collected
samples were analysed for COD, total suspended
solids, ammonium-nitrogen and phosphate-
phosphorus. The daily mean concentrations of the
results from these sampling methods were assessed
for agreement using Lin’s concordance correlation
coefficient (CCC).

22
4 Results and Discussion

4.1 Economic Life Cycle Cost
Analysis and Environmental Life
Cycle Assessment
The DST was developed and used to carry out
economic LCCA and environmental LCA on 10
WWTSs with user input variations in scale, organic
loading and discharge limits. The details of loading
rates, discharge limit values and sludge disposal
costs are provided in section A1.3. A subset of results
is presented here to illustrate the variations in the
economic and environmental performance of the
WWTSs as a function of the user input. Agglomeration
scales ranged from 500 to 2000 PE. Organic loading
varied between high and low loading conditions, and
discharge limits ranged from high (least stringent –
BOD removal only)6 to low (most stringent – BOD,
NH4, phosphorus and TN removal). Three sludge
treatment and disposal options were included in the
systems analyses:
●● Option 1 involved sludge treatment with an all-in-
one thickening and dewatering unit with polymer
and lime addition. It was assumed that the sludge
was removed from the WWTP site for land
spreading.
●● Option 2 involved sludge storage with no
treatment and removal from site by an external
contractor.
●● Option 3 included sludge drying beds with lime
addition for stabilisation and final removal by an
external contractor.7
In all three sludge options, the final destination was
assumed to be agricultural farmland, as this reflects
the most common route in Ireland (Joyce and Carney,
2012).
It is important to stress at this point that many of
the specific costs (e.g. chemicals and labour) and
capital costs that have been used to demonstrate
the methodology are based on national averages,
international academic literature and personal
communications. These costs can vary significantly with
location and, therefore, in another location, a different
set of region-specific costs could produce an entirely
different set of results. Thus, the results presented here
should be interpreted not as advocating one system
over another but as a demonstration of how the LCCs
of each of the considered systems are influenced by
site-specific variation. The LCCs of all systems were
calculated using the data in section A1.3. The LCCA
determined that the CW system had the lowest LCC of all
scenarios and, in many cases, was orders of magnitude
lower than the LCC of electro-mechanical systems.8
Therefore, the remainder of the LCC discussion
focuses on the electro-mechanical systems. Tables 4.1
and 4.2 present the electro-mechanical systems with
the lowest and highest LCC, respectively. The full set of
results and analysis can be found in McNamara (2017).
It should be reiterated that the LCC results presented
here are based on several user-defined scenarios that
were designed to demonstrate the effect of variation on
site-specific conditions.

6 Biochemical oxygen demand is a surrogate measure of the mass of organic substrate in the wastewater. It is represented by the
mass of oxygen required to oxidise the substrate. The term ‘BOD removal only’ is used to differentiate between systems that are
required to remove BOD, nitrogen and phosphorus, and those that are required to remove BOD only.
7 Sludge drying beds are not very common in Ireland because they require significant surface areas, are prone to odour problems
and generally perform better in more arid climates. However, in the correct conditions they can provide a low-cost alternative to
mechanical sludge treatment.
8 It should be noted that a conservative land value of €5/m2 was used in the study. In reality the cost of land could be as much as
€50/m2, as for the CW in Kill, County Waterford.

23
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants

Table 4.1. Life cycle cost analyses (lowest LCC)

Load Sludge option 1 Sludge option 2 Sludge option 3

Scenario System LCC Scenario System LCC Scenario System LCC

(€1 × 106) (€1 × 106) (€1 × 106)

DL band 4 High S1 AAO 1.94 S25 TF 2.31 S49 AAO 1.85

High S2 AAO 2.83 S26 RBC 4.00 S50 AAO 2.66
High S3 AAO 3.58 S27 RBC 5.52 S51 AAO 3.33
Low S4 TF 1.73 S28 TF 1.87 S52 TF 1.67
Low S5 AAO 2.51 S29 TF 3.02 S53 AAO 2.38
Low S6 AAO 3.05 S30 TF 4.02 S54 AAO 2.87
DL band 3 High S7 TF 1.89 S31 TF 2.20 S55 TF 1.80
High S8 AAO 2.92 S32 TF 3.87 S56 AAO 2.75
High S9 AAO 3.73 S33 TF 5.38 S57 AAO 3.48
Low S10 TF 1.67 S34 TF 1.81 S58 TF 1.60
Low S11 TF 2.40 S35 TF 2.90 S59 TF 2.28
Low S12 TF 2.99 S36 TF 3.84 S60 TF 2.80
DL band 2 High S13 TF 1.78 S37 TF 1.99 S61 TF 1.71
High S14 TF 2.68 S38 TF 3.35 S62 TF 2.54
High S15 TF 3.42 S39 TF 4.57 S63 TF 3.21
Low S16 TF 1.62 S40 TF 1.71 S64 TF 1.56
Low S17 TF 2.30 S41 TF 2.66 S65 TF 2.18
Low S18 TF 2.81 S42 TF 3.47 S66 TF 2.66
DL band 1 High S19 TF 1.74 S43 RBC 2.01 S67 TF 1.66
High S20 TF 2.49 S44 RBC 3.32 S68 TF 2.33
High S21 TF 3.10 S45 RBC 4.44 S69 TF 2.85
Low S22 TF 1.64 S46 TF 1.76 S70 TF 1.57
Low S23 TF 2.25 S47 TF 2.71 S71 TF 2.12
Low S24 TF 2.71 S48 TF 3.52 S72 TF 2.53

LCCs ranged from a low of €1.56 × 106 (TF system)
to a high of €7.81 × 106 (EA system). Attached growth
systems generally had the lowest LCCs in scenarios
with less stringent discharge limits. The TF LCC
values ranged from €1.56 × 106 to €5.38 × 106 as the
specific input conditions varied. The AAO system
showed the best performance of the suspended
growth systems and had the lowest LCC in scenarios
in which discharge limits were most stringent,
regardless of organic load variation. The EA, OD and
SBR systems had the highest LCCs. LCC values
ranged from €2.28 × 106 to €7.81 × 106 for EA systems,
from €2.22 × 106 to €7.33 × 106 for OD systems and
from €1.77 × 106 to €3.31 × 106 for SBR systems. In
scenarios without ammonia removal, LCC was lowest
for TF systems. This was mainly due to the reduction
in pumping energy requirements in scenarios involving
removal of BOD only. Two contributing factors are
considered here. Firstly, the specific organic loading
rate (OLR) for BOD removal only, 0.6–2.4 kg BOD/m3/
day (Metcalf & Eddy, 2014), is much higher than for
BOD and nitrogen removal (0.08–0.4 kg BOD/m3 day),
which means that a much greater volume of medium
is required for nitrogen removal. This has the effect
of increasing the distance the fluid has to travel by
increasing static head height or extending distributor
arm length. Secondly, a minimum hydraulic loading
rate (HLR) is required to control wetting efficiency
and biofilm thickness (0.5 l/m2/s was adopted for this
study) (Metcalf & Eddy, 2014). As the required volume
of medium increases, the HLR decreases. As stated,
nitrogen removal requires a greater volume of medium,
and this generally results in HLRs below 0.5 l/m2/s.
To solve this problem, a portion of the TF effluent is
recirculated and combined with the incoming primary
effluent. The required recirculation ratio is measured
relevant to the influent flow and ranges from 0.5 to
4.0 depending on the OLR (Metcalf & Eddy, 2014).

24
 L. Fitzsimons et al. (2014-W-DS-16)

Table 4.2. Life cycle cost analyses (highest LCC)

Load Sludge option 1 Sludge option 2 Sludge option 3

Scenario System LCC Scenario System LCC Scenario System LCC

(€1 × 106) (€1 × 106) (€1 × 106)

DL band 4 High S1 SBR 2.20 S25 EA 2.95 S49 SBR 2.09

High S2 OD 3.36 S26 EA 5.46 S50 OD 3.19
High S3 OD 4.42 S27 EA 7.81 S51 OD 4.17
Low S4 SBR 2.00 S28 EA 2.40 S52 SBR 1.92
Low S5 SBR 2.75 S29 EA 4.10 S53 EA 2.67
Low S6 EA 3.49 S30 EA 5.63 S54 OD 3.26
DL band 3 High S7 SBR 2.21 S31 EA 2.93 S55 SBR 2.11
High S8 SBR 3.31 S32 EA 5.45 S56 EA 3.13
High S9 OD 4.30 S33 EA 7.80 S57 OD 4.06
Low S10 SBR 1.98 S34 EA 2.38 S58 SBR 1.90
Low S11 SBR 2.74 S35 EA 4.07 S59 SBR 2.59
Low S12 OD 3.38 S36 EA 5.60 S60 OD 3.21
DL band 2 High S13 SBR 2.10 S37 EA 2.72 S61 SBR 2.01
High S14 SBR 3.05 S38 EA 4.93 S62 EA 2.90
High S15 OD 3.90 S39 EA 6.99 S63 OD 3.70
Low S16 SBR 1.94 S40 EA 2.28 S64 SBR 1.86
Low S17 EA 2.67 S41 EA 3.84 S65 EA 2.56
Low S18 EA 3.30 S42 EA 5.23 S66 EA 3.14
DL band 1 High S19 SBR 2.00 S43 OD 2.76 S67 SBR 1.90
High S20 OD 2.96 S44 OD 5.11 S68 OD 2.79
High S21 OD 3.78 S45 OD 7.33 S69 OD 3.54
Low S22 SBR 1.85 S46 OD 2.22 S70 SBR 1.77
Low S23 OD 2.50 S47 OD 3.77 S71 OD 2.44
Low S24 OD 3.16 S48 OD 5.16 S72 OD 2.98

Therefore, at very low OLRs it may be necessary to 4.1.1 Variation in scale

pump up to four times the average influent flow. The
The effect of increasing scale is a reduction in the
AAO system was the optimal choice in scenarios with
percentage of the systems’ LCC that is attributed to
phosphorus reduction requirements. There are several
CAPEX. Figure 4.1 presents the LCC distribution for
contributing factors. Firstly, there are reductions in
500-PE systems with high loading and low discharge
phosphorus-precipitating chemical requirements
limits. CAPEX accounts for an average of 48% of total
as a result of enhanced biological phosphorus
LCCs. OPEX accounts for 37%, energy for 9% and
removal. Secondly, the inclusion of a pre-anoxic tank
parts for 6%. Figure 4.2, in contrast, considers the
reduces the oxygen demand as oxygen is released
same treatment scenario, but for 2000-PE systems.
during nitrate reduction, thus lowering aeration
The average CAPEX is reduced to 42% and OPEX to
energy. Alkalinity is also restored during pre-anoxic
36%; energy is increased to 18% and the parts cost is
denitrification, thus lowering the requirement for the
reduced to 5%.
addition of external alkalinity. Finally, the AAO system
does not require the addition of external carbon. The increase in the energy percentage occurs
However, it should be noted that variation in flow because the scale economy rates are higher for the
rates is more significant in very small systems than other LCC elements, i.e. the other operational cost
in large systems. Controlling an AAO system in these elements show a greater reduction per capita with
conditions can be challenging, and close monitoring by increasing scale. Most systems show some level of
experienced personnel is necessary. reduction in specific per capita energy use with an

25
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants

Figure 4.1. Life cycle cost distribution, 500 PE. Figure 4.2. Life cycle cost distribution, 2000 PE.

increase in scale, e.g. the CMAS system’s specific 4.1.3 Variation in discharge limits
energy is reduced from 0.75 kWh/m3 to 0.72 kWh/
Variation in discharge limits from most to least
m3 for an increase from 500 PE to 2000 PE. Because
stringent, sludge option 1, results in a reduction in LCC
the discount rate used to calculate the energy
of 20%, on average. Operational costs are reduced
UPV (5%) is greater than the OPEX UPV (3.5%),
from 36% to 33% and energy from 18% to 13%,
differences in the rate of change with respect to
while CAPEX increases from 42% to 48%. Analysis
scale are increased. It is evident that, as WWTS
of sludge disposal variation showed that drying beds
scale becomes very small, CAPEX becomes the
had the lowest LCCs of the three options evaluated in
dominant LCC component for some systems.
all scenarios. The variation in LCC between options 1
This trade-off between cost components puts the
and 3 ranged from 4% to 15%. The smallest difference
economic and environmental costs in direct conflict
in the values between options 1 and 3 – in which
with each other because, if CAPEX becomes the
the LCC with the drying bed option is at its highest –
basis for system comparison and selection, OPEX is
occurs at small scales when organic loading is low,
a secondary consideration and it is the operational
which reduces surface area requirement because
phase of a system’s lifetime that contributes most to
drying bed surface area is a function of organic
environmental impact.
loading. Land is assumed not to lose its value and,
therefore, systems with large surface areas have a
4.1.2 Variation in organic load greater residual value at the end of their lifetimes. The
percentage difference in the systems’ LCCs between
A change in the variation in loading from low to
options 1 and 2 ranged from 1% to 49%. Option 1
high results in a collective average increase of all
always yielded a lower LCC than option 2. The largest
systems in OPEX (29–36%) and in energy (14–18%).
difference in values occurred at large scales, high
CAPEX is a function of scale and, therefore, while the
loading and high limits, when solids retention times
estimated CAPEX does not change with respect to
(SRTs) were at their lowest and sludge production at
changes in organic loading, the CAPEX percentage
its highest.
of the LCC decreases from 51% to 42%. The LCC
distribution presented below (Figures 4.3 and 4.4) is
based on sludge option 1, in which the cost of sludge 4.1.4 Sludge treatment and disposal
disposal is minimal. In sludge option 2, where sludge
The attached growth systems performed better in
disposal costs are at a maximum, OPEX is increased
sludge option 2 than option 1 (Figures 4.5 and 4.6).
from 52% to 60% and energy from 9% to 11% and
The primary cause relates to the sludge dry solids
CAPEX is reduced from 35% to 25% of the total LCC.
concentration (DSC). Attached growth systems

26
 L. Fitzsimons et al. (2014-W-DS-16)
Figure 4.3. Life cycle cost distribution – low
loading.
Figure 4.5. Life cycle cost distribution – sludge
option 1.
generally produce higher-density sludge. TF sludge
or humus DSC is reported to range from 1% to 4%
(Turovskiy and Mathai, 2006). The average TF and
RBC DSC value adopted for this study is 2.3%,
whereas the value adopted for waste activated
sludge (WAS) is 1.3%. Although the difference is
small, the effect on sludge volume is significant.
For a 2000-PE plant with high organic loading and
phosphorus removal, the sludge mass was estimated
to be 200 kg DS/day. Without any treatment, the TF
system sludge volume is 5.06 m3/day, and the AAO
system sludge volume is 6.95 m3/day. The difference
of 1.89 m3/day equates to an additional removal cost
of €141.75/day, or €51,738/year, for disposal by
an external contractor. Similarly, despite the higher
27
Figure 4.4. Life cycle cost distribution – high
loading.
Figure 4.6. Life cycle cost distribution – sludge
option 2.
CAPEX associated with the SBR system, the 4.3%
sludge DSC value adopted (Janczukowicz et al.,
2001) resulted in the system outperforming other
activated sludge-based systems in this sludge disposal
category. Because the cost of disposal is dependent
on volume (for any given destination), it could have
been assumed that the option to dewater and land
spread would result in much lower LCCs. Moreover,
the specific cost of removal of sludge from the site for
land spreading was 20% lower than using the external
contractor at €60 and €75/m3, respectively. However,
for small scale systems with low loading and ammonia
reduction requirements, the external contractor option
becomes more economical when the specific cost of
disposal falls below €65/m3.
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants

4.1.5 Life cycle impact assessment quantity of energy used and the mode of national
energy generation. AP is dominated by the impact from
The life cycle impact assessment methodology results
chemical production and, therefore, systems with the
presented below (Figures 4.7 to 4.12) represent
ability to mitigate a percentage of chemical use, such
scenarios with high loading and low discharge limits for
as the AAO system, have a more favourable AP profile
500–2000 PE in sludge option 1. These scenarios were
(Figure 4.8). A simplification was used to estimate EP;
chosen to provide a general overview because they
as the discharge limits are considered to represent
include all systems considered. The outputs of each
the final effluent concentrations of a given pollutant,
category have been normalised with Western Europe
most systems have the same EP output, with slight
normalisation factors (2001–2013) for the purpose
variations where there is EP from other sources. The
of comparison (Jolliet et al., 2003). The CW systems
main contributors to ADPf are energy and chemical
had the lowest environmental impact in all impact
production, which account for 22–60% and 40–78%
categories and scenarios. Direct aerial emissions
of the total impact, respectively. As with other impact
of CO2 were, on average, 25% lower than for the
categories to which energy and chemicals are the
electro-mechanical systems, but mitigation of a large
main contributors, the AAO system has the lowest
proportion of the downstream CO2 emissions from
potential (Figure 4.10). Over 90% of HTP is attributed
energy and chemical production increases this value
to the heavy metal content of sludge. The remaining
to almost 50%. Other impact categories, such as AP
10% varies between energy and chemical production
and ADPf, show a much greater difference in output
depending on variations in other parameters. The
between CW and electro-mechanical systems, while
concentration of heavy metals was estimated as a
categories such as EP and human toxicity potential
percentage of the sludge DSC and, therefore, the
(HTP) show similar ranges of output because the
HTP was largely consistent between systems (Figure
magnitude of impact in these categories is influenced
4.11). The most significant variation occurs between
more by direct emissions than by those generated by
sludge disposal options. According to Stefanakis and
upstream processes.
Tsihrintzis (2012), on average, metal concentrations in
The general trend observed in the environmental the residual sludge in drying reed beds are about 30%
profiles of the electro-mechanical systems was that, as of the original values. Most of the metals accumulate
discharge limits became more stringent, the systems’ in the gravel layer (49%), while plant uptake accounts
EP levels decreased; however, in most of the other for 3% and 16% of heavy metals remain in the
environmental impact categories, levels increased drained water. Therefore, sludge drying beds can
as the demand for energy and chemicals grew. This provide a good option for reducing toxicity potential in
inverse relationship illustrates a trade-off between categories in which sludge is the dominant contributor.
impact categories and leads to a wider debate on Note that, from an LCA perspective, the heavy metal
regional versus local impacts, which is warranted but content in sludge is the major contributor to the LCA
beyond the scope of the current study. toxicity impact factor. It is also worth noting however
that, according to the National Wastewater Sludge
The electro-mechanical systems’ GWP and AP profiles
Management Plan,9 the concentration of metals in Irish
varied with energy and chemicals use. The impact
sludge is consistently low.
from energy use was found to be heavily influenced by
the Irish electrical grid mix, of which 93% is made up
of fossil-based fuels. Natural gas accounts for 43%, 4.2 Performance Assessment
hard coal for 27.1%, heavy fuel oil for 14.8% and peat Methodology
for 8.3% (Thinkstep GaBi, 2012). This produced an
The results from piloting the performance assessment
aggregated equivalent CO2 potential of 0.58 kg CO2/
methodology, KPICalc, have been reported in an
kWh produced. Comparing this with the 0.059 kg CO2/
earlier EPA report (Fitzsimons et al., 2016) and
kWh produced in Sweden, whose grid consists of
therefore will not be repeated in this report. It should
46% hydro and 46% nuclear (Thinkstep GaBi, 2012),
be noted, however, that, in the case of small-scale
it is evident that a system’s GWP is subject to the
WWTPs, additional care and attention are required

9 https://www.water.ie/projects-plans/our-plans/wastewater-sludge-management/Final-NWSMP.pdf

28
 L. Fitzsimons et al. (2014-W-DS-16)

Figure 4.7. Global warming potential. Figure 4.8. Acidification potential.

Figure 4.9. Eutrophication potential. Figure 4.10. Abiotic resource depletion potential
(fossil).

Figure 4.11. Human toxicity potential, sludge 1. Figure 4.12. Human toxicity potential, sludge 3.

29
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants

when undertaking performance assessment.
Implementing KPICalc is achievable even if the
available data are limited; however, it is recommended
that caution is exercised if benchmarking such
facilities against other WWTPs or drawing significant
conclusions from the exercise. This reflects challenges
previously identified regarding data management
practices in Irish WWTPs.
It is recommended that managers of small-scale
WWTPs who want to benchmark their WWTP
against its peers undertake a period of intensive
wastewater testing and data collection for performance
assessment purposes. This ensures that sufficient
results are provided, enabling adequate conclusions to
be drawn from benchmarking.
4.3 Comparable Wastewater
Treatment Plant Identification
Tool
The comparable WWTP identifier tool was developed
and piloted using the preloaded Irish WWTP
data, which are supplied by each WWTP to the
EPA for regulation purposes. The recommended
identifiers (design capacity, cBOD, ammonium and
orthophosphate), along with the recommended
subdivisions, were selected for piloting.
Table 4.4 condenses the results obtained from the
comparable WWTP identifier tool when using the
above identifiers and subdivisions. Several well-
populated combinations of discharge limit identifiers
and subdivisions can be identified in Table 4.4. These
combinations are spread across both stringent (e.g.
cBOD 5.01–10 mg/l, ammonium 0–1 mg N/l and
orthophosphate 0–1 mg P/l) and moderately stringent
discharge limit concentrations (e.g. cBOD 10.01–
25 mg/l, ammonium 1.01–5 mg N/l and orthophosphate
1.01 mg/l or more), such that there are WWTPs of
each size category that have the above combinations
of discharge limits.
With more WWTPs becoming subject to increasingly
stringent discharge limits, greater focus must be given
to improving WWTP performance in a sustainable
manner, as stringent discharge limit concentrations
typically require increased WWTP contaminant
removal performance, resulting in additional resource
consumption. Benchmarking of WWTPs can be more
effective where there are a number of WWTPs within
a given category (Table 4.4); although some WWTPs
share similar subdivisions, many are unique in terms of
their discharge limit concentrations. Therefore, minor
changes to an discharge limit could move a WWTP
into a category where it can be compared with others.

4.3.2 Comparing wastewater treatment plants

4.3.1 Assessment of the spread of discharge
limit concentrations
The combinations considered when developing
this tool (which can be changed by the user) are
summarised in Table 4.3. For example, there were 66
WWTPs with a PE of 10,000 or more and 152 WWTPs
with an ammonium discharge limit of between 1 mg/l
and 5 mg/l.
as part of KPICalc result analysis
Using the WWTP identifier tool, users can select
comparable WWTPs for benchmarking using
KPICalc results. If required, users can then assess
the percentage of design capacity utilised by using
KPICalc results to ensure that the WWTPs are
using similar levels of their design capacity; WWTPs
may differ substantially in terms of design capacity

Table 4.3. Distribution of preloaded WWTP data across identifiers (PE, cBOD, etc.) and subdivisions
(groupings considered: < 500 PE, etc.)

Design Capacity Number of cBOD Number of Ammonium Number of Orthophosphate Number of

(PE) WWTPs (mg/l) WWTPs (mg N/l) WWTPs (mg/l) WWTPs
< 500 36 ≤ 5 15 ≤ 1 72 ≤ 1 147
500–1000 94 > 5–10 69 > 1–5 152 > 1 80
1001–2000 72 > 10–25 235 > 5 34
2001–10,000 87 > 25 2
> 10,000 66

30
 L. Fitzsimons et al. (2014-W-DS-16)

Table 4.4. Condensed results from the application of the comparable WWTP identifier tool

cBOD (mg/l) Ammonium Orthophosphate Total numbers of WWTPs by design capacity

(mg/l) (mg/l)
< 500 PE 500–1000 PE 1001–2000 PE 2001– > 10,000 PE
10,000 PE
– – – 10 12 3 5 4
0–5 – – 0 1 0 0 0
0–5 0–1 – 0 0 0 1 0
0–5 – 0–1 0 0 0 0 1
0–5 0–1 0–1 0 1 3 3 1
0–5 0–1 ≥1.01 1 0 0 0 0
0–5 1.01–5 0–1 0 1 1 1 0
5.01–10 – – 0 5 2 1 0
5.01–10 0–1 – 0 3 0 1 1
5.01–10 1.01–5 – 0 0 1 0 0
5.01–10 – 0–1 0 0 1 1 0
5.01–10 0–1 0–1 4 6 9 11 6
5.01–10 1.01–5 0–1 1 3 5 4 0
5.01–10 1.01–5 ≥1.01 0 1 1 0 1
5.01–10 5.01+ ≥1.01 0 1 0 0 0
10.01–25 – – 6 8 8 4 12
10.01–25 0–1 – 0 0 1 1 1
10.01–25 1.01–5 – 1 0 1 7 9
10.01–25 5.01+ – 1 1 2 7 8
10.01–25 – 0–1 0 0 1 1 1
10.01–25 – ≥1.01 0 5 0 1 2
10.01–25 0–1 0–1 0 4 4 7 1
10.01–25 0–1 ≥1.01 0 0 1 1 0
10.01–25 1.01–5 0–1 6 12 12 19 10
10.01–25 1.01–5 ≥1.01 5 23 11 10 6
10.01–25 5.01+ 0–1 0 3 2 0 1
10.01–25 5.01+ ≥1.01 1 4 1 1 1
25.01+ 1.01–5 ≥1.01 0 0 2 0 0

utilisation, which can affect WWTP comparability.
Similarly, discharge limit compliance results for each
WWTP should be assessed to ensure that WWTPs are
meeting these regulatory requirements (this is an initial
output of KPICalc).
To further check WWTP comparability, users may
wish to assess additional WWTP characteristics to
differentiate between WWTPs within a comparable
group. This may be achieved by analysis of the
KPICalc results as part of an optional secondary
comparable WWTP identification step. Secondary
identification of comparable WWTPs involves taking
the WWTPs of interest identified during primary
identification and comparing contextual information
and KPI results using KPICalc outputs. If KPICalc
results are being benchmarked across two comparable
groups (e.g. in the case of a group containing only
one WWTP), users must benchmark KPI results
with caution and assess the contextual information
provided in the survey module of KPICalc to aid in the
identification of WWTP characteristics that may affect
comparability.
It should also be noted that the cost of achieving
compliance has not yet been widely analysed, and this
should be considered. Such analyses should include
the additional energy costs and carbon emissions
associated with achieving particularly stringent
discharges and compared with the potential benefits of
these limits. These issues are central to the LCCA and
LCA components of this research.

31
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants

4.3.3 Statistical agreement of wastewater
quality sampling methods
The numerical results obtained from Lin’s CCC
provide a more reliable method for assessing method
agreement by analysing each pair of reported results
and calculating an overall indicator of agreement.
Lin’s CCC outputs a numerical value between –1
and +1 (similar to correlation values), with a CCC
of 1 indicating perfect agreement and a CCC of –1
indicating perfect disagreement. In practice, a degree
of error is often present and uncontrollable; therefore,
it is rare to find perfect agreement (CCC = 1) between
two methods. Table 4.5 presents the results obtained
from statistical agreement analysis using Lin’s CCC.
The precision and bias correction factors are also
presented.
From analysis of the CCC results, there was
insufficient agreement between any of the selected
grab sampling methods and the flow-paced method in
calculating daily mean concentrations in both WWTP
A and WWTP B (Table 4.5). Poor agreement between
the M6G method (the mean of six grab samples
collected over 24 hours) and FP method (a 24-hour
flow-paced composite sample) can be seen in Table
4.5, with the highest CCC result obtained by reporting
the daily mean influent ammonium concentration using
the M6G and FP methods in WWTP B (CCC = 0.6705).
In the M3WDG (mean of three grab samples collected
during working day) and M3RG (mean of three
randomly selected grab samples) methods, three
grab samples were used to calculate daily mean
concentrations to remove the effect of the number of

Table 4.5. Agreement between flow-paced sampling and various grab sampling frequencies

Parameter Sampling methods Sample size CCC 95% confidence Pearson ρ Bias correction
(days) interval (precision) factor Cb (accuracy)

WWTP A
COD M3WDG and FP 28 0.2520 0.006437 to 0.4689 0.3912 0.6442
M3RG and FP 32 0.0465 –0.09497 to 0.1861 0.1178 0.3946
M6G and FP 26 0.1743 –0.03651 to 0.3702 0.3268 0.5332
TSS M3WDG and FP 28 0.4749 0.1826 to 0.6901 0.548 0.8666
M3RG and FP 32 0.4823 0.2524 to 0.6606 0.6329 0.762
M6G and FP 26 0.5800 0.2667 to 0.7824 0.5909 0.9815
Ammonium M3WDG and FP 28 0.2662 –0.004365 to 0.5004 0.3746 0.7105
M3RG and FP 32 0.2534 0.04620 to 0.4397 0.4389 0.5774
M6G and FP 26 0.4851 0.2378 to 0.6733 0.6815 0.7117
Orthophosphate M3WDG and FP 26 0.3076 0.05360 to 0.5242 0.4756 0.6467
M3RG and FP 31 0.1031 –0.06378 to 0.2643 0.2276 0.4529
M6G and FP 24 0.2607 0.06078 to 0.4405 0.5488 0.475
WWTP B
COD M3WDG and FP 30 0.3473 0.08229 to 0.5665 0.4497 0.7723
M3RG and FP 30 0.5336 0.2903 to 0.7120 0.6308 0.8459
M6G and FP 29 0.4155 0.1922 to 0.5979 0.5907 0.7035
TSS M3WDG and FP 30 0.3639 0.01744 to 0.6324 0.3696 0.9848
M3RG and FP 30 0.3852 0.03578 to 0.6507 0.3852 1.0000
M6G and FP 29 0.4475 0.1257 to 0.6840 0.4699 0.9523
Ammonium M3WDG and FP 30 0.6485 0.3954 to 0.8101 0.6681 0.9706
M3RG and FP 30 0.6358 0.3689 to 0.8058 0.6489 0.9799
M6G and FP 29 0.6705 0.4362 to 0.8196 0.7069 0.9485
Orthophosphate M3WDG and FP 30 0.3892 0.06330 to 0.6401 0.4108 0.9475
M3RG and FP 30 0.2976 –0.05637 to 0.5851 0.3036 0.9801
M6G and FP 28 0.5101 0.2257 to 0.7143 0.5575 0.9149

M3WDG, mean of three grab samples collected during working day (8 a.m., 12 p.m. and 4 p.m.); M3RG, mean of three
randomly selected grab samples; M6G, mean of six grab samples collected over 24 hours; FP, a 24-hour flow-paced
composite sample, TSS, total suspended solids.

32
 L. Fitzsimons et al. (2014-W-DS-16)
samples used in each method. From analysis of the
CCC results, although identical numbers of samples
are used in each method, the timing of these samples
influenced each method’s agreement with flow-
paced sampling, which is connected to daily influent
variability. CCC results for the M3WDG and M3RG
methods are seen to vary across the four pollutants of
interest and in both WWTPs; however, the strength of
agreement of these methods remain poor.
Overall, it is clear that, in the WWTPs analysed, flow-
paced sampling would be the most representative
method of sampling wastewater of all the methods
presented in this study. This is to be expected in the
case of WWTPs dealing with large daily variations
in influent characteristics and influent pollutant
concentrations. However, it should be noted that
some WWTPs may show low influent variability; in
this case, a small number of grab samples may be
as representative of the daily mean as flow-paced
samples.
4.3.4 Application of the statistical agreement
analysis methods in Irish WWTPs
Irish WWTPs with a design capacity greater than
2000 PE are required by regulation to provide
flow-paced composite sampling facilities; however,
WWTPs can use either time-paced or flow-paced
composite sampling for regulatory monitoring (which
typically takes place on a monthly basis). Given
33
the cost associated with maintaining flow-paced
sampling facilities, it may be unfeasible to provide this
facility on the influent and effluent stream in WWTPs
that have a design capacity of less than 2000 PE
and at the frequency required for performance
assessment. Therefore, it may be necessary to (1)
identify alternative representative sampling methods
for influent and effluent sampling or (2) prioritise the
provision of flow-paced sampling on either the influent
or the effluent stream (whichever presents the largest
variation in pollutant concentrations and flow rates)
and opt for a lower cost but representative method of
sampling on the remaining stream.
The processes used in the WWTPs can also present
a buffering capacity, which (1) facilitates influent
wastewater mixing (normally via a balance tank at
or close to the influent works) and (2) potentially
regulates the flow rate at which the effluent is
discharged. Therefore, accounting for flow variation
may not be as critical in effluent sampling as in
influent sampling. Therefore, for WWTP operations
purposes, where it is necessary to prioritise flow-paced
provision on one wastewater stream, it may be more
economically feasible to utilise flow-paced sampling on
the influent stream. Subsequently, using the methods
presented in this chapter, it is crucial that a grab
sampling or time-paced sampling methodology with a
high statistical strength of agreement with flow-paced
methods is identified for the effluent stream.
5 Conclusions
Two software tools were developed during this and
earlier affiliated research (Fitzsimons et al., 2016):
DST and KPICalc.
There is no “one size fits all” wastewater treatment
design solution for small systems. Variations in plant
scale, organic and hydraulic loading, discharge limits
and land availability can influence the economic and
environmental performance of a treatment system to
the extent that its suitability for a given location may be
less than that of competing systems; therefore, system
applicability should be assessed on a case-by-case
basis.
Using the DST tool developed as part of this research
and the previously discussed user inputs, CWs were
found to be a viable alternative to conventional electro-
mechanical systems in locations where land availability
at a reasonable cost is not an issue. In addition, CWs
were found to have a more favourable environmental
profile as a result of reduced energy and chemical
requirements.
Energy use contributes significantly to both the
operational cost and the environmental impact of small
electro-mechanical WWTSs. Small agglomerations
do not benefit from energy scale economies and incur
a higher per capita energy cost. This places even
greater importance on understanding the specific
energy costs associated with a given system in a given
location.
The environmental impact resulting from energy
consumption is influenced by both the quantity of
energy used and the country’s electrical grid mix.
Improvements in WWTS efficiencies and operation,
coupled with the integration of more renewable
sources of energy into the national electrical grid mix,
will improve a system’s environmental profile.
There are significant trade-offs between regional
and global environmental impact categories. This is
largely dictated by a plant’s discharge limits, i.e. more
34
stringent discharge limits will reduce regional impact
(eutrophication, toxicity) while increasing global impact
(global warming, acidification).
Of the on-site sludge treatment options considered in
this study, drying beds have the greatest potential to
reduce terrestrial toxicity because of their capacity to
reduce heavy metal concentrations. However, as with
CWs, the large surface areas required for drying beds
may restrict their selection feasibility. Furthermore, in
more suburban locations, there may be a social aspect
to consider because of odour-related issues.
Great care should be taken when selecting
WWTPs against which to benchmark. WWTP
size and regulatory requirements can affect
resource consumption and subsequent WWTP
performance benchmarking. In addition, the complex
relationship that is often seen between these
WWTP characteristics results in the need for various
characteristics to be assessed simultaneously.
The WWTP grouping methodology (comprising a
DST to facilitate rapid identification of comparable
WWTPs) has shown great potential in the identification
of WWTPs that can be compared and benchmarked
using KPICalc results. In addition, the comparable
WWTP identification tool offers the advantage of rapid
identification of WWTPs and the ability to repeat the
analysis with ease, when compared with any manual
method of identification.
By assessing the statistical agreement between the
various sampling methodologies in a WWTP, it may
be possible to identify if a representative method of
wastewater sampling for benchmarking processes that
is low cost and low maintenance (and therefore more
suited to the long-term sampling associated with daily
benchmarking) can replace costlier methods, such as
flow-paced composite sampling. Selecting a reliable,
yet low-maintenance, method may potentially mitigate
current data availability and accuracy issues.
6 Recommendations
6.1 Assess Performance Using
Multiple Criteria and KPIs over
the System Life Cycle
The economic and environmental costs of WWTPs
are a function of many variables, including some,
such as influent concentrations and discharge
requirements, over which a plant manager has little
control. WWTP performance should be assessed
holistically using multiple criteria over the entire
system life cycle. Compliance with discharge limits
can increase energy and chemical demands, which
can produce unintended consequences, such as
an increase in global warming potential. A more
in-depth analysis will be required to assess future
trade-offs between environmental compartments as
discharge limits become more strict and new limits
are introduced to deal with emerging pollutants.
Benchmarking of WWTPs should be further developed
as a performance optimisation and management tool.
This will require, in particular, the use of flow-paced
sampling at WWTPs. Methodologies to determine
minimal data requirements for effectively implementing
performance management, life cycle assessment and
benchmarking tools should be considered.
6.2 Performance Assessment
Methodology Application
The performance assessment and comparable WWTP
identification methodologies developed in this study
can be applied to standalone software applications
and existing technologies such as building information
modelling, digital asset management and supervisory
control and data acquisition. By applying these
methodologies to existing technologies, the need for
additional training on new software applications is
minimised and an opportunity for greater collaboration
between personnel in the management and
optimisation of WWTPs is presented.
6.3 Sampling Methods at WWTPs
The use of flow-paced sampling is likely to result in the
most accurate representation of influent and effluent
contaminant loads. However, this study presents
35
a methodology whereby the use of carefully timed
grab sampling can be analysed and may result in
sufficiently accurate sampling, particularly of effluent
streams.
Lin’s CCC and other statistical agreement assessment
methods have been used in many epidemiological
studies to assess agreement between medical
methods. However, such statistical analysis methods
have not been widely applied throughout the water
and wastewater sector. This report found that Lin’s
CCC can be readily and practically applied for the
assessment of wastewater quality sampling methods;
it is recommended that the strength-of-agreement
values proposed by McBride (2007) be adapted to suit
the objectives of the study.
6.4 System Selection
Ideally, all WWTS selection would be based on
sustainable, socially acceptable designs with low
environmental impact and economic cost. Historically,
CAPEX has been the dominant consideration and
other criteria may have been overlooked. It is therefore
recommended that economic cost evaluations and
comparisons are carried out over the lifetime of the
systems using appropriate cost models, such as
those presented in this report. A separate PV estimate
should be used for energy to assess the sensitivity of
LCC to variations in energy discount rates, and this
should be re-evaluated regularly as energy prices
fluctuate.
Environmental impact should be another important
design criterion, particularly in situations where the
LCCs of competing systems are within a margin of
uncertainty. Based on the DST model developed
during this research and the input data used:
●● DSTs, such as that presented in this report, can
(or should) be used to compare the relative merits
of both natural and electro-mechanical WWTSs on
a case-by-case basis.
●● Sludge disposal costs are location-specific and
alternative disposal options should be assessed
during LCCA for competing systems.
7 Publications Arising from This Research
7.1 Articles
Doherty, E., Fitzsimons, L., Corcoran, B., Delaure,
Y. and Clifford, E., 2017. A resource consumption
benchmarking system for WWTPs. Asian Water
Magazine Issue 12: 13–16.
McNamara, G., Fitzsimons, L., Doherty, E. and Clifford,
E., 2017. The evaluation of technologies for small,
new design, wastewater treatment systems. Journal of
Desalination and Water 91: 12–22.
McNamara, G., Horrigan, M., Phelan, T., Fitzsimons, L.,
Delaure, Y., Corcoran, B., Doherty, E. and Clifford, E.,
2016. Life cycle assessment of waste water treatment
plants in Ireland. Journal of Sustainable Development
of Energy, Water and Environment Systems 4(3):
216–233.
Fitzsimons, L., Horrigan, M., McNamara, G., Doherty,
E., Phelan, T., Corcoran, B., Delauré, Y. and Clifford,
E., 2016. Assessing the thermodynamic performance
of Irish municipal wastewater treatment plants using
exergy analysis: a potential benchmarking approach.
Journal of Cleaner Production 131: 387–398.
Doherty, E., McNamara, G., Fitzsimons, L. and Clifford,
E., 2014. Design and implementation of a resource
consumption benchmarking methodology cognisant of
data accuracy for Irish wastewater treatment plants.
Journal of Cleaner Production 165: 1529–1541.
7.2 Peer-reviewed Conference Papers
Doherty, E., Fitzsimons, L., McNamara, G. and Clifford,
E., 2017. Resource benchmarking: grouping Irish
wastewater treatment plants using discharge licence
data. Paper presented at Pi 2017 – Specialist
Conference on Benchmarking and Performance
Assessment, 15–17 May 2017, Vienna, Austria, pp.
15–17.
Doherty, E., Fitzsimons, L., McNamara, G. and
Clifford, E., 2017. Assessment of the statistical
agreement between wastewater sampling methods
for daily wastewater treatment plant performance
benchmarking purposes. Paper presented at Pi
2017 – Specialist Conference on Benchmarking and
Performance Assessment, 15–17 May 2017, Vienna,
Austria.
36
McNamara, G., Fitzsimons, L., Doherty, E. and Clifford,
E., (2016) The evaluation of technologies for small,
new design, wastewater treatment systems. Paper
presented at the 13th IWA Specialised Conference
on Small Water and Wastewater Systems and 5th
IWA Specialised Conference on Resource-orientated
Sanitation, 14–16 October 2016, Athens, Greece.
Doherty, E., McNamara, G., Phelan, T., Horrigan,
M., Fitzsimons, L., Corcoran, B., Delaure, Y. and
Clifford, E., 2015. Benchmarking resource efficiency
in wastewater treatment plants: developing best
practices. Paper presented at the IWA International
Conference on Water Efficiency and Performance
Assessment of Water Services, 20–24 April 2015,
Cincinnati, OH, USA.
McNamara, G., Fitzsimons, L., Doherty, E., Clifford,
E. and Delaure, Y., 2015. Performance metrics in
life cycle assessments of wastewater treatment
plants. Paper presented at the 10th Conference
on Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and
Environment Systems, 27 September to 2 October
2015, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Doherty, E., Fitzsimons, L., Corcoran, B., Delaure, Y.
and Clifford, E., 2014. Design and implementation of
a resource consumption benchmarking system for
wastewater treatment plants. Paper presented at the
IWA Water, Energy and Climate Conference 2014,
21–23 May 2014, Mexico City, Mexico.
McNamara, G. Horrigan, M., Phelan, T., Fitzsimons, L.,
Delaure, Y., Doherty, E. and Clifford, E., 2014. Life
cycle assessment of waste water treatment plants
in Ireland. Paper presented at the 1st South East
European Conference on Sustainable Development
of Energy, Water and Environment Systems (SEE
SDEWES Ohrid 2014), 29 June to 3 July 2014, Ohrid,
Republic of Macedonia.
7.3 Invited Talks
Fitzsimons, L., McNamara, G., Phelan, T., Horrigan, M.,
Doherty, E., Clifford, E., Delaure, Y. and Corcoran, B.
2014. Energy and water: wastewater treatment. Water:
the greatest global challenge. 2nd Annual Conference,
27–28 November 2014, DCU Water Institute, Dublin.
 L. Fitzsimons et al. (2014-W-DS-16)

7.4 Theses Doherty, E., 2017, Development of new benchmarking

systems for wastewater treatment facilities. PhD
McNamara, G., 2017, Economic and environmental cost thesis. National University of Ireland, Galway.
assessment of wastewater treatment systems: a life Available online: https://aran.library.nuigalway.ie/
cycle perspective. PhD thesis. Dublin City University. handle/10379/6637

37
References
Arditi, D. and Messiha, H.M. 1999, Life cycle cost
analysis (LCCA) in municipal organizations. Journal of
Infrastructure Systems 5(1): 1–10.
Babatunde, A., Zhao, Y., O’Neill, M. and O’Sullivan,
B., 2008. Constructed wetlands for environmental
pollution control: a review of developments, research
and practice in Ireland. Environment International
34(1): 116–126.
Belmont, M.A., Cantellano, E., Thompson, S., Williamson,
M., Sánchez, A. and Metcalfe, C.D., 2004. Treatment
of domestic wastewater in a pilot-scale natural
treatment system in central Mexico. Ecological
Engineering 23(4): 299–311.
Bolles, S., 2006. Modeling wastewater aeration systems
to discover energy savings opportunities. Process
Energy Services, LLC, Londonderry, NH.
Cabrera, E., Dane, P., Haskins, S. and Theuretzbacher-
Fritz, H., 2009. Benchmarking revisited: the global
search for performance improvement. American Water
Works Association Journal 101(11): 22–26.
Carlson, S.W. and Walburger, A., 2007. Energy
Index Development for Benchmarking Water
and Wastewater Utilities. American Water Works
Association, Denver, CO.
Corominas, L., Foley, J., Guest, J.S., Hospido, A., Larsen,
H.F., Morera, S. and Shaw, A., 2013. Life cycle
assessment applied to wastewater treatment: state of
the art. Water Research 47(15): 5480–5492.
Davis, M.L., 2010. Water and Wastewater Engineering.
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA.
Dhillon, B.S., 2009. Life Cycle Costing for Engineers.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Eisenberger, I. and Lorden, G., 1977. Life cycle costing:
practical considerations. DSN Progress Report 42(40):
102–109.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 2015. Urban
Waste Water Treatment in 2015. EPA, Johnstown
Castle, Ireland.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 2016. Ireland’s
Environment – An Assessment 2016, Environment
and the Economy: Overview. EPA, Johnstown Castle,
Ireland.
38
Fitzsimons, L., Clifford, E., McNamara, G., Doherty, E.,
Phelan, T., Horrigan, M., Delauré, Y. and Corcoran, B.,
2016. Increasing Resource Efficiency in Wastewater
Treatment Plants. Environmental Protection Agency,
Johnstown Castle, Ireland.
Foess, G.W., Steinbrecher, P., Williams, K. and Garrett,
G., 1998. Cost and performance evaluation of BNR
processes, Florida Water Resources Journal 11:
11–13.
Foladori, P., Vaccari, M. and Vitali, F. 2015. Energy audit
in small wastewater treatment plants: methodology,
energy consumption indicators, and lessons learned.
Water Science and Technology 72(6): 1007–1015.
Gallego, A., Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T. and Feijoo, G.,
2008. Environmental performance of wastewater
treatment plants for small populations. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 52(6): 931–940.
Garrido-Baserba, M., Sobhani, R., Asvapathanagul, P.,
McCarthy, G.W., Olson, B.H., Odize, V., Al-Omari, A.,
Murthy, S., Nifong, A. and Godwin, J., 2016. Modelling
the link amongst fine-pore diffuser fouling, oxygen
transfer efficiency, and aeration energy intensity. Water
Research 111: 127–139.
Gkika, D., Gikas, G.D. and Tsihrintzis, V.A., 2014.
Construction and operation costs of constructed
wetlands treating wastewater. Water Science and
Technology 70(5): 803–810.
Gratziou, Μ.Κ, Tsalkatidou, M. and Kotsovinos, Ν.Ε.,
2006. Economic evaluation of small capacity sewage
processing units. Global NEST Journal 8(1): 52–60.
Guinée, J.B., Gorrée, M., Huppes, G., Klein, R., de
Koning, A., van Oers, L., Sleeswijk, A.W., Suh, S.,
and Udo de Haes, H.A., 2001. Handbook on Life
Cycle Assessment – Operational Guide to the ISO
standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,
the Netherlands.
Heino, O.A., Takala, A.J. and Katko, T.S., 2011.
Challenges to Finnish Water and Wastewater Services
in the Next 20–30 Years, Tampere, Finland.
Henze, M., 2008. Biological Wastewater Treatment:
Principles, Modelling and Design. IWA Publishing,
London.
 L. Fitzsimons et al. (2014-W-DS-16)
Hospido, A., Moreira, M. and Feijoo, G., 2008. A
comparison of municipal wastewater treatment plants
for big centres of population in Galicia (Spain). The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13(1):
57–64.
Irish Environment, 2016. Life Cycle Assessment.
Available online: http://www.irishenvironment.com/
iepedia/life-cycle-assessment/ (accessed 13 October
2016).
ISO (International Organization for Standardization),
1997. ISO 14040: Environmental Management – Life
Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. ISO,
Brussels.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization),
1998. ISO 14041: Environmental Management – Life
Cycle Assessment – Goal and Scope Definition and
Inventory Analysis. ISO, Brussels.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization),
2000. ISO 14042: Environmental Management – Life
Cycle Assessment – Life Cycle Impact Assessment.
ISO, Brussels.
Janczukowicz, W., Szewczyk, M., Krzemieniewski, M. and
Pesta, J., 2001. Settling properties of activated sludge
from a sequencing batch reactor (SBR). Polish Journal
of Environmental Studies 10(1): 15–20.
Johnson, T., Steichen, M., Shaw, A., McQuarrie, J. and
Hunter, G., 2006. When is IFAS the right choice?
Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation
2006(13) 200–224.
Johnson, T.L., McQuarrie, J.P. and Shaw, A.R., 2004.
Integrated fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS): the
new choice for nitrogen removal upgrades in the
United States. Proceedings of the Water Environment
Federation 2004(16): 296–318.
Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J.,
Rebitzer, G. and Rosenbaum, R., 2003. IMPACT 2002:
a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8(6):
324.
Jones, G.M., Bosserman, B.E., Sanks, R.L. and
Tchobanoglous, G. 1989. Pumping Station Design.
Butterworth Publishers, Waltham, MA.
Joyce, M. and Carney, C., 2012. Management Options
for the Collection, Treatment and Disposal of Sludge
Derived from Domestic Wastewater Treatment
Systems. Strive Report 2012-W-DS-9. Environmental
Protection Agency, Johnstown Castle, Ireland.
39
Kalbar, P.P., Karmakar, S. and Asolekar, S.R., 2013.
Assessment of wastewater treatment technologies: life
cycle approach. Water and Environment Journal 27(2):
261–268.
Kayranli, B., Scholz, M., Mustafa, A., Hofmann, O. and
Harrington, R., 2010. Performance evaluation of
integrated constructed wetlands treating domestic
wastewater. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 210(1–4):
435–451.
Lecouls, H., 1999. ISO 14043: Environmental
management – lifecycle assessment – life cycle
interpretation. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 4: 254.
Lens, P., Zeeman, G. and Lettinga, G., 2001.
Decentralised Sanitation and Reuse, IWA Publishing,
New York, NY, USA.
Lindtner, S., Schaar, H. and Kroiss, H., 2008.
Benchmarking of large municipal wastewater treatment
plants treating over 100,000 PE in Austria. Water
Science and Technology 57(10): 1487–1493. Available
online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18520003
(accessed 27 November 2013).
LMI (Logistics Management Institute), 1965. Life Cycle
Costing in Equipment Procurement. Washington, DC,
USA.
Longo, S., d’Antoni, B.M., Bongards. M., Chaparro, A.,
Conrath, A., Fatone, F., Lema, J.M., Iglesias, M.M.,
Soares, A. and Hospido, A., 2016. Monitoring and
diagnosis of energy consumption in wastewater
treatment plants. A state of the art and proposals for
improvement. Applied Energy 179: 1251–1268.
Lundin, M., Bengtsson, M. and Sverker, M., 2000. Life
cycle assessment of wastewater systems:  influence
of system boundaries and scale on calculated
environmental loads. Environmental Science &
Technology 34(1): 180–186.
McBride, G.B., 2007. Equivalence Measures for
Comparing the Performance of Alternative Methods
for the Analysis of Water Quality Variables. National
Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd,
Auckland.
McEntee, D., 2006. Constructed Wetlands: Opportunities
for Local Authorities. Dublin City Council, Dublin,
Ireland.
Machado, A.P., Urbano, L., Brito, A., Janknecht, P., Salas,
J. and Nogueira, R., 2007. Life cycle assessment
of wastewater treatment options for small and
decentralized communities. Water Science and
Technology 56(3): 15–22.
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants

McNamara, G., 2017. Economic and environmental cost Pretel, R., Robles, A., Ruano, M., Seco, A. and Ferrer,
assessment of wastewater treatment systems: a life J., 2016. Economic and environmental sustainability
cycle perspective. PhD thesis. Dublin City University, of submerged anaerobic MBR-based (AnMBR-
Dublin. based) technology as compared to aerobic-based
technologies for moderate-/high-loaded urban
Martin, C. and Vanrolleghem, P.A., 2014. Analysing,
wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental
completing, and generating influent data for WWTP
Management 166: 45–54.
modelling: A critical review. Environmental Modelling
and Software 60: 188–201. Rawal, N. and Duggal, S., 2016. Life cycle costing
assessment-based approach for selection of
Matos, R., Cardoso, A., Ashley, R.M., Duarte, P., Molinari,
wastewater treatment units. National Academy
A. and Schulz, A., 2003. Performance Indicators for
Science Letters 39(2): 103–107.
Wastewater Services. IWA Publishing, London.
Reicherter, E., 2003. Investigations to Indicators as
Metcalf & Eddy, 2014. Wastewater Engineering:
a Basis for Cost Considerations in Sanitation (in
Treatment and Resource Recovery. International
German). Oldenbourg-Industrieverl, Munich, Germany.
Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA.
Rieger, L., Takács, I., Villez, K., Siegrist, H., Lessard,
Mizuta, K. and Shimada, M., 2010. Benchmarking energy
P., Vanrolleghem, P. and Comeau, Y., 2010. Data
consumption in municipal wastewater treatment plants
reconciliation for wastewater treatment plant simulation
in Japan. Water Science and Technology  62(10):
studies – planning for high-quality data and typical
2256–2262. Available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.
sources of errors. Water Environment Research 82:
nih.gov/pubmed/21076210 (accessed 27 November
426–433.
2013).
Roeleveld, P.J., Klapwijk, A., Eggels, P.G., Rulkens,
Molinos-Senante, M., Gómez, T., Caballero, R.,
W.H. and van Starkenburg, W., 1997. Sustainability of
Hernández-Sancho, F. and Sala-Garrido, R., 2015.
municipal waste water treatment. Water Science and
Assessment of wastewater treatment alternatives
Technology 35(10): 221–228.
for small communities: An analytic network process
approach. Science of The Total Environment 532: Rosso, D. and Stenstrom, M.K., 2005. Comparative
676–687. economic analysis of the impacts of mean cell
retention time and denitrification on aeration systems.
NEIWPCC, 2008.The Northeast Guide for Staffing at
Water Research 39: 3773–3780.
Publicly and Privately Owned Wastewater Treatment
Plants. NEIWPCC, Lowell, MA, USA. Schumacher, E.F., 1989. Small is Beautiful: A Study of
Economics as if People Mattered. Harper and Row,
Olsson, G., 2012. Water and Energy: Threats and
New York, NY, USA.
Opportunities. IWA Publishing, New York, NY, USA.
Shannon, D., Wall, B. and Flynn, D., 2014. Focus on
O’Reilly, E., Clifford, E., Rodgers, M. and O’Donoghue,
Urban Waste Water Treatment in 2012: A Report for
P., 2012. Treatment and Monitoring of Nutrients,
the Year 2012. Environmental Protection Agency,
Odour and Sludge at a Small-Town Demonstration
Johnstown Castle, Ireland.
Wastewater Treatment System. Strive Report
2006-ET-LS-12-M3. Environmental Protection Agency, Solano, M., Soriano, P. and Ciria, M., 2004. Constructed
Johnstown Castle, Ireland. wetlands as a sustainable solution for wastewater
treatment in small villages. Biosystems Engineering
Parena, R. and Smeets, E., 2001. Benchmarking
87(1): 109–118.
initiatives in the water industry. Water Science and
Technology 44(2–3): 103–110. Stefanakis, A.I. and Tsihrintzis, V.A., 2012. Heavy metal
fate in pilot-scale sludge drying reed beds under
Poloski, A.P., Bonebrake, M.L., Casella, A.M., Johnson,
various design and operation conditions. Journal of
M.D., Toth, J.J., Adkins, H.E., Chun, J., Denslow,
Hazardous Materials 213: 393–405.
K.M., Luna, M. and Tingey, J.M. 2009. Deposition
Velocities of Non-Newtonian Slurries in Pipelines: Strauss, M. and Montanegro, A. 2002. FS Management
Complex Simulant Testing. Pacific Northwest National – Review of Practices, Problems and Initiatives.
Laboratory, Richland, WA. Department of Water and Sanitation in Developing
Countries (SANDEC), Duebendorf, Switzerland.

40
 L. Fitzsimons et al. (2014-W-DS-16)
Talebizadeh, M., Belia, E. and Vanrolleghem, P.A., 2016.
Influent generator for probabilistic modeling of nutrient
removal wastewater treatment plants. Environmental
Modelling & Software 77: 32–49.
Tao, X. and Chengwen, W., 2012. Energy consumption
in wastewater treatment plants in China. In World
Congress on Water, Climate and Energy. International
Water Association, London, pp. 1–6.
Tewari, P.K. and Bewtra, J.K., 1982. Alpha and beta
factors for domestic wastewater. Journal (Water
Pollution Control Federation) 54: 1281–1287.
Thaler, S., 2009. European Wastewater Benchmarking
Reporting – Discussion of Current Activities and
Chances of Cross-national Comparison. European
Water Association, Hennef, Germany.
Thinkstep GaBi, 2012. GaBI LCA databases. Available
online: http://www.gabi-software.com/databases/gabi-
databases (accessed 16 May 2018).
Tillman, A., Svingby, M. and Lundstrom, H., 1998. Life
cycle assessment of municipal waste water systems.
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
3(3): 145–157.
Tillman, A.M. and Baumann, H., 2004. The Hitch Hiker’s
Guide to LCA. 1:7 Edition. Studentlitteratur, Lund,
Sweden.
Torregrossa, D., Schutz, G., Cornelissen, A., Hernández-
Sancho, F. and Hansen, J., 2016. Energy saving
in WWTP: daily benchmarking under uncertainty
and data availability limitations. Environmental
Research 148: 330–337. Available online: http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0013935116301360
Turovskiy, I.S. and Mathai, P.K., 2006. Wastewater
Sludge Processing. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY,
USA.
41
US EPA, 1981. Operation and Maintenance Costs for
Municipal Wastewater Facilities. Office of Program
Operations, Washington, DC, USA.
Vidal, N., Poch, M., Martí, E. and Rodríguez-Roda, I.,
2002. Evaluation of the environmental implications
to include structural changes in a wastewater
treatment plant. Journal of Chemical Technology &
Biotechnology 77(11): 1206–1211.
von Sperling, M., 1996. Comparison among the most
frequently used systems for wastewater treatment in
developing countries. Water Science and Technology
33(3): 59–72.
Vymazal, J., 2005. Horizontal sub-surface flow and
hybrid constructed wetlands systems for wastewater
treatment. Ecological Engineering 25(5): 478–490.
Vymazal, J., 2010. Constructed wetlands for wastewater
treatment. Water 2(3): 530–549.
Wallace, S.D. and Knight, R.L., 2006. Small Scale
Constructed Wetland Treatment Systems: Feasibility,
Design Criteria and O&M Requirements. IWA
Publishing, New York, NY, USA.
Wendland, A., 2005. Operation Costs of Wastewater
Treatment Plants. Available online: https://cgi.
tu-harburg.de/~awwweb/wbt/emwater/documents/
lesson_c2.pdf
White, F.M. 2003, Fluid Mechanics. 5th edition. McGraw-
Hill Book Company, Boston, MA.
Woodward, D.G., 1997. Life cycle costing – theory,
information acquisition and application. International
Journal of Project Management 15(6): 335–344.
Yang, L., Zeng, S., Chen, J., He, M. and Yang, W., 2010.
Operational energy performance assessment system
of municipal wastewater treatment plants. Water
Science and Technology 62(6): 1361–1370.
Abbreviations
AAO Anaerobic anoxic oxic
ADPf Abiotic resource depletion (fossil)
AO Anoxic oxic
AP Acidification potential
BOD Biochemical oxygen demand
CAPEX Capital expenditure
CAS Conventional activated sludge
cBOD Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand
CCC Concordance Correlation Coefficient
CCI Construction cost index
CMAS Complete mix activated sludge
CML Institute of Environmental Sciences
COD Chemical oxygen demand
CW Constructed wetland
DSC Dry solids concentration
DST Decision support tool
EA Extended aeration
EP Eutrophication potential
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GWP Global warming potential
HF Horizontal flow
HLR Hydraulic loading rate
HTP Human toxicity potential
ICW Integrated constructed wetland
IFAS Integrated fixed-film activated sludge
IWA International Water Association
42
KPI Key performance indicator
KPICalc Key Performance Indicator Calculator
LCA Life cycle analysis
LCC Life cycle cost
LCCA Life cycle cost assessment
LCI Life cycle inventory
MBBR Moving bed biofilm reactor
MBR Membrane bioreactor
NPV Net present value
OD Oxidation ditch
ODP Ozone depletion potential
OLR Organic loading rate
OPEX Operational expenditure
PE Population equivalent
PV Present value
RBC Rotating biological contactor
SBR Sequence batch reactor
SPV Single present value
SRT Solids retention time
TF Trickling filter
TN Total nitrogen
UPV Uniform present value
VF Vertical flow
WAS Waste activated sludge
WSP Waste stabilisation ponds
WWTP Wastewater treatment plant
WWTS Wastewater treatment system
Appendix 1 Survey of Existing Irish WWTSs

Table A1.1. Licensed treatment systems as a

percentage of total licensed treatment systems in A1.1 Capital Expenditure Adjustment
Ireland
⎛I CK ⎞
Cc = ⎜ c t l ⎟ × ERl
Treatment system Percentage ⎝ It ⎠
 (A1.1)
Biofilter 0.63%
CAS 36.27% where Cc is the current cost of the system, Ic is
EA 7.97% the current construction cost index (CCI); It is the
ICWs 0.42% CCI at time t of plant construction; Ct is the cost
IFAS 0.21% of construction at time t; Kl is the location factor:
MBR 0.21% Ireland–US location factor in 2015 was 1.3 and
MBBR 0.21% the Ireland–Greece location factor was unavailable
Pump flow bioreactors 0.21% (assumed factor of 1);10 and ERl is the currency
RBC 5.87% exchange rate (the euro–US dollar rate in 2015 was
SBR 13.84% approximately 0.9).
TF 2.94%
Unspecified 31.45%

Information supplied by the EPA (2014).

Table A1.2. Overview of some life cycle analysis studies conducted in Ireland

Study title Author(s) Funding body/academic URL

Life cycle assessment of Irish
compost production and agricultural
use
Development and evaluation of life
cycle assessment technologies for
the Irish dairy industry
Quantification of the potential of
white clover to lower greenhouse
gas emissions from Irish grassland-
based dairy production
Use of life cycle assessment in Irish
freshwater aquaculture systems
Life cycle assessment of electricity
production in Ireland
Miscanthus production and
processing in Ireland: an analysis
of energy requirements and
environmental impacts
institute
Eoin White Department of the Environment, http://www.cre.ie/web/wp-content/
Community and Local uploads/2010/12/Compost-Life-
Government Cycle.pdf
Laurence Shalloo Teagasc https://www.teagasc.ie/media/
website/publications/2016/6421_
Technology_Update_LCA_
Technologies_L_Shalloo.pdf
James Humphreys Department of Agriculture, Food https://www.agriculture.gov.
and the Marine ie/media/migration/research/
rsfallfundedprojects/2007projects/
RSF07516FinalReport.pdf
Ronan Cooney, Department of Agriculture, Food http://www.morefish.ie/wp-content/
Robert Walsh, and the Marine uploads/2016/12/Environ-LCA.pdf
Richard Fitzgerald
and Eoghan
Clifford
Deidre Wolff Dublin Institute of Technology http://dit.ie/dublinenergylab/media/
ditdublinenergylab/seminars/
Deidre%20Wolff.pdf
Fionnuala Murphy, University College Dublin http://irserver.ucd.ie/bitstream/
Ger Devlin and handle/10197/5655/Environmental_
Kevin McDonnell and_energy_performance_of_
Miscanthus_production_and_
processing_systems_in_Ireland.
pdf?sequence=1

10 The location factor normalises the differences in cost of construction between countries.

43
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants

A1.2 Life Cycle Cost Model A1.3 System Analysis Loading and
Discharge Limit Values
The SPV method (equation A1.2) applies to one-off
payments that occur infrequently sometime in the
future. It is used in the present study to account for Table A1.3. Typical concentrations of wastewater
replacement parts and the system’s residual value at pollutants
the end of its lifetime. Parameter Concentration (mg/l)

Co High Low
SPV =
(1+ d)n BOD 350 230
 (A1.2)
TSS 400 250
where C0 is the original cost at the base year; n is TN 60 30
the number of years from the base year; and d is the TP 15 6
applied discount rate (nominal discount rate of 3.5% NH3 45 20
applied). Annually recurring operational costs are PO43– 10 4
calculated with the UPV formula (equation A1.3). TP, total phosphorus, TSS, total suspended solids.

⎛ (1+ d)n − 1⎞
UPVOM = ∑ AO,i ⎜
⎝ d(1+ d)n ⎟⎠ Table A1.4. Discharge limit variation (values in
 (A1.3)
mg/l)
where A0,i is the annual recurring cost of the operation
Discharge limit BOD NH3 PO43– TN
and maintenance element i, at base year 0. In the band
study conducted by Rawal and Duggal (2016), 1 30 n/a n/a n/a
recurring energy costs were treated separately from 2 30 1 n/a n/a
other O&M costs. This relates to the volatility in the 3 30 1 0.5 na/
cost of energy. In recent years, changes in the cost 4 30 0.5 0.5 15
of energy have not aligned with CCIs; therefore, a
n/a, not applicable.
separate discount rate for the energy UPV (UPVE) of
should be used (equation A1.4). The total LCC of each
WWTS is given by equation A1.5. Table A1.5. Sludge treatment options

Sludge Description Specific

(1+ d)n − 1 option disposal
UPVE = AO
d(1+ d)n number cost (€/m3)
 (A1.4)
1 Dewatering – land spreading 60
2 No dewatering – external 75
LCC = ∑ (SPV + UPVOM + UPV E ) contractor – land spreading
 (A1.5)
3 Drying beds – external 60
contractor – land spreading

44
 L. Fitzsimons et al. (2014-W-DS-16)

Table A1.6. Sludge dry solids concentrations assumed for the study

Sludge type Range of DS concentrations Assumed value (DS) (%) Reference

(%)
Primary 2–7 4.3 Turovskiy and Mathai
(2006)
Drum screen 2–7 4.3 Assumed similar removal
rates to those of primary
setting
SBR 2.6–5.7 4.3 Janczukowicz et al. (2001)
Waste activated 0.4–1.5 1.3 Turovskiy and Mathai
(2006)
Attached growth 1–4 2.5 Turovskiy and Mathai
(2006)
All-in-one dewatering and 24 PWTech
thickening unit
Drying beds 40–70 50 Strauss and Montanegro
(2002)

DS, dry solids.

Table A1.7. Sludge disposal options and specific costs

Sludge type Disposal option Specific costs Source

Untreated
Transport to parent plant €0.66/m3 per km Mooney Transport, Birr, County Offaly, sales
representative, personal communication, December 2016
External contractora €75/m3 Enva Ireland, sales representative, personal
communication, 15 November 2016
Treated
D+Sb Land spreading €60/kg Personal communication
D c
Transport to parent plant €0.66/m per km
3
Personal communication
D External contractor €75/m3 Personal communication
a
Enva is a waste management company in Ireland that provides sludge stabilisation and disposal services.
b
Dewatered and stabilised.
c
Dewatered only.

45
 Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants

Table A1.8. Aeration system parameters, reported value ranges and assumed values

Parameter Variation/range Assumed values Source

Aerator system Submerged diffuser n/a n/a
horizontal surface (rotary
type)
Diffuser types Fine bubble diffusers and n/a n/a
coarse bubble diffusers
Oxygen transfer efficiency Range (kg O2/kWh) n/a n/a
Surface aerator 1.5–2.1 1.8 Henze (2008),
Fine bubble diffusers 3.0–4.8 3.5 Bolles (2006)

Alpha factor (α)

Surface aerator 0.85 Function of SRT Rosso and
Fine bubble diffusers Variable Stenstrom (2005)

Beta factor (β) 0.97–0.99 0.9 Tewari and

Bewtra (1982)
Fouling factor 0.4–1 0.9 Garrido-Baserba
et al. (2016)
Tank depth (m) 4–6 Variable based on tank surface area n/a
to depth ratio
Tank shape Rectangular, round n/a n/a
Blower efficiency 0.45–0.65 0.60 Metcalf & Eddy
(2014)
Motor efficiency 0.85–0.95 0.90 Metcalf & Eddy
(2014)
Temperature (°C) Variable 10 n/a
Elevation (metres above sea level) Variable 118 n/a

n/a, not applicable.

Table A1.9. Pumping model parameters and assumed values

Variable Influent Primary WAS RAS Nitrate recycle TF Source

sludge
∆H (m) 3 7 7 3 0 Variable
Lpipe (m) 8 Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable
Dpipe (m) 0.1–0.15 0.1–0.15 0.1–0.15 0.1–0.15 0.1–0.15 0.1–0.15 Jones et al. (1989)
Minimum fluid velocity 1.83 1.83 1.83 1.83 1.83 1.83 Poloski et al. (2009)
(v) (m/s)
Fluid density (ρ) (kg/ 1010 1030 1010 1010 1010 1010
m 3)
Solids concentration 0.1 4.3 1.3 0.8 0.35 0.8 Turovskiy and
(%) Mathai (2006)
Viscosity (µ) of water 1.25 × 10–3
(N s/m2)
Sum of the minor 12.5 9.6 9.6 8 8 12.5 White (2003), Jones
headloss coefficients et al. (1989)
(Σk)
Motor efficiency (ηm) 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Jones et al. (1989)
Pump efficiency (ηp) 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Metcalf & Eddy
(2014)
Mulbarger friction n/a 1.75 n/a n/a n/a n/a Jones et al. (1989)
factor (mf)

RAS, return activated sludge.

46
 L. Fitzsimons et al. (2014-W-DS-16)

Table A1.10. Energy use assumptions for common unit processes

Unit process Value Details Reference

Mechanical inlet screens (kWh/m ) 3
0.01 Continuous belt type Foladori et al. (2015)
Primary sedimentation tanks (kWh/m3) 0.012 Circular tank Foladori et al. (2015)
Secondary sedimentation tanks (kWh/m ) 3
0.012 Circular tank Foladori et al. (2015)
Thickening and dewatering (kWh/kg DS) 0.05 All-in-one unit Amcom
Municipal energy (kWh/m3) 0.012 Plant lighting, control and Foladori et al. (2015)
automation, administration buildings

DS, dry solids.

Table A1.11. Chemicals and specific costs

Chemical Formula Cost Reference

Ferric chloride (37% FeCl3 €0.70/l Personal communication, 2016, Acorn
concentration) Water, Bandon, Co. Cork, Ireland
Sodium hydroxide NaOH €0.77/kg Kemcore
Calcium hydroxidea Ca(OH)2 €0.20/kg Index Mundi
Polymers (acrylic acid) variable €5/kg Keller Schnier
Calcium hypochloriteb Ca(OCl)2 €1.53/kg Kemcore
Ethanol C 2H 6O €0.65/l Ng-Tech
a
Estimated cost is based on US values adjusted from 2013 to 2017.
b
Original price was quoted for 65% available chlorine; price presented here has been adjusted to represent 100% chlorine.

Table A1.12. Lime stabilisation dosage

Sludge type Solids concentration (%) Ca(OH)2 dosage range (g/kg DS) Model values (g/kg DS)
Primary 4.3 60–170 120
Secondary 1.3 210–430 300
Mixed sludge (60:40) P&S 3.8 n/a 192

Adapted from data from Metcalf & Eddy (2014).

DS, dry solids; n/a, not applicable; P&S, primary and secondary.

Figure A1.1. Required iron (Fe) as a function of influent phosphorus concentration. Adapted from Metcalf
& Eddy, 2014.

47
AN GHNÍOMHAIREACHT UM CHAOMHNÚ COMHSHAOIL
Tá an Ghníomhaireacht um Chaomhnú Comhshaoil (GCC) freagrach as an
gcomhshaol a chaomhnú agus a fheabhsú mar shócmhainn luachmhar do
mhuintir na hÉireann. Táimid tiomanta do dhaoine agus don chomhshaol a
chosaint ó éifeachtaí díobhálacha na radaíochta agus an truaillithe.
Is féidir obair na Gníomhaireachta a
roinnt ina trí phríomhréimse:
Rialú: Déanaimid córais éifeachtacha rialaithe agus comhlíonta
comhshaoil a chur i bhfeidhm chun torthaí maithe comhshaoil a
sholáthar agus chun díriú orthu siúd nach gcloíonn leis na córais sin.
Eolas: Soláthraímid sonraí, faisnéis agus measúnú comhshaoil atá
ar ardchaighdeán, spriocdhírithe agus tráthúil chun bonn eolais a
chur faoin gcinnteoireacht ar gach leibhéal.
Tacaíocht: Bímid ag saothrú i gcomhar le grúpaí eile chun tacú
le comhshaol atá glan, táirgiúil agus cosanta go maith, agus le
hiompar a chuirfidh le comhshaol inbhuanaithe.
Ár bhFreagrachtaí
Ceadúnú
Déanaimid na gníomhaíochtaí seo a leanas a rialú ionas nach
ndéanann siad dochar do shláinte an phobail ná don chomhshaol:
• saoráidí dramhaíola (m.sh. láithreáin líonta talún, loisceoirí,
stáisiúin aistrithe dramhaíola);
• gníomhaíochtaí tionsclaíocha ar scála mór (m.sh. déantúsaíocht
cógaisíochta, déantúsaíocht stroighne, stáisiúin chumhachta);
• an diantalmhaíocht (m.sh. muca, éanlaith);
• úsáid shrianta agus scaoileadh rialaithe Orgánach
Géinmhodhnaithe (OGM);
• foinsí radaíochta ianúcháin (m.sh. trealamh x-gha agus
radaiteiripe, foinsí tionsclaíocha);
• áiseanna móra stórála peitril;
• scardadh dramhuisce;
• gníomhaíochtaí dumpála ar farraige.
Forfheidhmiú Náisiúnta i leith Cúrsaí Comhshaoil
• Clár náisiúnta iniúchtaí agus cigireachtaí a dhéanamh gach
bliain ar shaoráidí a bhfuil ceadúnas ón nGníomhaireacht acu.
• Maoirseacht a dhéanamh ar fhreagrachtaí cosanta comhshaoil na
n-údarás áitiúil.
• Caighdeán an uisce óil, arna sholáthar ag soláthraithe uisce
phoiblí, a mhaoirsiú.
• Obair le húdaráis áitiúla agus le gníomhaireachtaí eile chun dul
i ngleic le coireanna comhshaoil trí chomhordú a dhéanamh ar
líonra forfheidhmiúcháin náisiúnta, trí dhíriú ar chiontóirí, agus
trí mhaoirsiú a dhéanamh ar leasúchán.
• Cur i bhfeidhm rialachán ar nós na Rialachán um
Dhramhthrealamh Leictreach agus Leictreonach (DTLL), um
Shrian ar Shubstaintí Guaiseacha agus na Rialachán um rialú ar
shubstaintí a ídíonn an ciseal ózóin.
• An dlí a chur orthu siúd a bhriseann dlí an chomhshaoil agus a
dhéanann dochar don chomhshaol.
Bainistíocht Uisce
• Monatóireacht agus tuairisciú a dhéanamh ar cháilíocht
aibhneacha, lochanna, uiscí idirchriosacha agus cósta na
hÉireann, agus screamhuiscí; leibhéil uisce agus sruthanna
aibhneacha a thomhas.
• Comhordú náisiúnta agus maoirsiú a dhéanamh ar an gCreat-
Treoir Uisce.
• Monatóireacht agus tuairisciú a dhéanamh ar Cháilíocht an
Uisce Snámha.
Monatóireacht, Anailís agus Tuairisciú ar
an gComhshaol
• Monatóireacht a dhéanamh ar cháilíocht an aeir agus Treoir an AE
maidir le hAer Glan don Eoraip (CAFÉ) a chur chun feidhme.
• Tuairisciú neamhspleách le cabhrú le cinnteoireacht an rialtais
náisiúnta agus na n-údarás áitiúil (m.sh. tuairisciú tréimhsiúil ar
staid Chomhshaol na hÉireann agus Tuarascálacha ar Tháscairí).
Rialú Astaíochtaí na nGás Ceaptha Teasa in Éirinn
• Fardail agus réamh-mheastacháin na hÉireann maidir le gáis
cheaptha teasa a ullmhú.
• An Treoir maidir le Trádáil Astaíochtaí a chur chun feidhme i gcomhair
breis agus 100 de na táirgeoirí dé-ocsaíde carbóin is mó in Éirinn.
Taighde agus Forbairt Comhshaoil
• Taighde comhshaoil a chistiú chun brúnna a shainaithint, bonn
eolais a chur faoi bheartais, agus réitigh a sholáthar i réimsí na
haeráide, an uisce agus na hinbhuanaitheachta.
Measúnacht Straitéiseach Timpeallachta
• Measúnacht a dhéanamh ar thionchar pleananna agus clár beartaithe
ar an gcomhshaol in Éirinn (m.sh. mórphleananna forbartha).
Cosaint Raideolaíoch
• Monatóireacht a dhéanamh ar leibhéil radaíochta, measúnacht a
dhéanamh ar nochtadh mhuintir na hÉireann don radaíocht ianúcháin.
• Cabhrú le pleananna náisiúnta a fhorbairt le haghaidh éigeandálaí
ag eascairt as taismí núicléacha.
• Monatóireacht a dhéanamh ar fhorbairtí thar lear a bhaineann le
saoráidí núicléacha agus leis an tsábháilteacht raideolaíochta.
• Sainseirbhísí cosanta ar an radaíocht a sholáthar, nó maoirsiú a
dhéanamh ar sholáthar na seirbhísí sin.
Treoir, Faisnéis Inrochtana agus Oideachas
• Comhairle agus treoir a chur ar fáil d’earnáil na tionsclaíochta
agus don phobal maidir le hábhair a bhaineann le caomhnú an
chomhshaoil agus leis an gcosaint raideolaíoch.
• Faisnéis thráthúil ar an gcomhshaol ar a bhfuil fáil éasca a
chur ar fáil chun rannpháirtíocht an phobail a spreagadh sa
chinnteoireacht i ndáil leis an gcomhshaol (m.sh. Timpeall an Tí,
léarscáileanna radóin).
• Comhairle a chur ar fáil don Rialtas maidir le hábhair a
bhaineann leis an tsábháilteacht raideolaíoch agus le cúrsaí
práinnfhreagartha.
• Plean Náisiúnta Bainistíochta Dramhaíola Guaisí a fhorbairt chun
dramhaíl ghuaiseach a chosc agus a bhainistiú.
Múscailt Feasachta agus Athrú Iompraíochta
• Feasacht chomhshaoil níos fearr a ghiniúint agus dul i bhfeidhm
ar athrú iompraíochta dearfach trí thacú le gnóthais, le pobail
agus le teaghlaigh a bheith níos éifeachtúla ar acmhainní.
• Tástáil le haghaidh radóin a chur chun cinn i dtithe agus in ionaid
oibre, agus gníomhartha leasúcháin a spreagadh nuair is gá.
Bainistíocht agus struchtúr na Gníomhaireachta um
Chaomhnú Comhshaoil
Tá an ghníomhaíocht á bainistiú ag Bord lánaimseartha, ar a bhfuil
Ard-Stiúrthóir agus cúigear Stiúrthóirí. Déantar an obair ar fud cúig
cinn d’Oifigí:
• An Oifig um Inmharthanacht Comhshaoil
• An Oifig Forfheidhmithe i leith cúrsaí Comhshaoil
• An Oifig um Fianaise is Measúnú
• Oifig um Chosaint Radaíochta agus Monatóireachta Comhshaoil
• An Oifig Cumarsáide agus Seirbhísí Corparáideacha
Tá Coiste Comhairleach ag an nGníomhaireacht le cabhrú léi. Tá
dáréag comhaltaí air agus tagann siad le chéile go rialta le plé a
dhéanamh ar ábhair imní agus le comhairle a chur ar an mBord.
EPA Research Report 255
Optimal Design and Operation of Small-scale
Wastewater Treatment Plants: The Irish
Case

Authors: Lorna Fitzsimons, Greg McNamara,

Edelle Doherty and Eoghan Clifford

Municipal wastewater treatment is resource intensive, typically using a combination of physical, biological
and chemical processes to treat wastewater to designated environmental standards. Traditionally, the main
priority of wastewater treatment has been driven by environmental effluent quality standards. However,
it is important to note that effluent quality is not the only environmental impact of wastewater treatment;
other important impacts include the use of energy and chemicals, emissions to air, and sludge management.
The focus of this research was small wastewater treatment plants (population equivalent < 2000). The main
objectives were to:
• develop a methodology and decision support tool (DST) sensitive areas that are subject to eutrophication. Nutrient
to assess the life cycle costs and environmental impact removal, as well as the predicted requirement to remove
of wastewater treatment plants for given site-specific emerging contaminants of concern, is expected to increase
characteristics; wastewater treatment plant resource consumption. As a
• develop software tools and methodologies to assist result, there are inherent trade-offs between the positive
stakeholders to benchmark to better manage Irish environmental benefits of higher quality wastewater
wastewater treatment plants. and the negative environmental impacts associated
with additional energy and chemical requirements to
Identifying pressures achieve those standards. Using life cycle assessment (LCA)
this research demonstrates that emission limits values,
Wastewater treatment plant managers are tasked with technology and operational choices have important
achieving emission limits values while simultaneously consequences for environmental performance and
improving resource efficiency. Treatment plants vary therefore this should also be an important consideration for
considerably in terms of their emission limits values, scale, policymakers, as well as effluent quality.
loading, technology and sludge management inter alia.

Benchmarking and life cycle cost assessment are two key

approaches to (1) compare and improve the performance
of wastewater treatment plants and (2) estimate the life
cycle costs of a wastewater treatment system in given
site-specific conditions. However, this research identified
pressures in the adaptation and implementation of these
approaches, for example limited and non-standardised
data availability, and the need for effective sampling
methodologies to accurately compare plant performance.
Informing policy
The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/
EEC) requires that wastewater is treated to designated
standards before being discharged to the environment.
Required effluent quality is largely driven by the sensitivity
of the receiving water and the scale of the treatment
plant. For example, nutrient removal is required in
Developing solutions
The research team has developed benchmarking and life
cycle cost/LCA methodologies and software tools (KPICalc
and DST) that holistically consider both the economic
and the environmental costs of wastewater treatment
from a site-specific perspective (emission limits values,
scale, loading, technology, sludge management). A DST
was developed, which, given accurate local cost data,
can be used to compare various wastewater treatment
technologies under different user-defined operating
scenarios, in terms of economic and environmental impact.
This research also developed software tools to assist key
stakeholders to benchmark the performance of wastewater
treatment plants. The tools developed facilitate the
identification of suitable wastewater treatment plants for
comparison purposes and appropriate sampling strategies.

EPA Research: McCumiskey House,

Richiew, Clonskeagh, Dublin 14. www.epa.ie
Phone: 01 268 0100
Twitter: @EPAResearchNews EPA Research Webpages
Email: research@epa.ie www.epa.ie/researchandeducation/research/